Lakhbir Dhaliwal v. Vijay Gupta & ORS.


 !" #$ %#
&'('
)'$*'
''

'
)"'$  

 ) +), -

  

 



  



  ! "

  #$ $'


.(/! $0&#1  !1'
&'*2'11   %"&'&()*)"+& ,,- $./)0 % &1"&)*)- $./)0&# %"&)*)- $./)0#$ 
 0#$ 2  33333 1'
&'*2'11 3&0

 45)40#5#-6 )(&'&),5), (7)&+0&*#+$)5)$$)$
89
8: ; 6
<-  #)$  '4  ,)$  $+  !00/-  =),  .* $),'),6/*6 )'=6-=&)$+)&  $*#+$)5)$$)$
89
8:

;6
<- )##,/)0,$'4#$ 
6%1)4 #)-$"/ 22=:<0&$),# /-
9>:0&-& /0
9>?<-5)$#$0&0).-5&&#)4$0)/ 0)$/#)4&)*0 -2@-@AB6),+5&C
@D#)*

 2 #,)$$&)&)##*,5)+.'4

)(&.&),5),6#:#$ 
)#&)5)$<-5& 5)5(+$&=,0#$ 26&/

),-  $)  =/,  0  %$/),  )/&-   )*,+)5)* &)5)- ) )+); 9

- 5,&6

9 &#,)$$/)&)##,/)&)#1/5)$&=, 0#$ 26&/ ),-=% 6$)=/,0 %$/), )/&)$#$5('&),00=% 6 $)=/,0%$), )/&0&#,)$$&)& =% 6$)=/,0%$), )/&-5&$//,) 0***)$/&//,)$)$
A@
5)$ 0.+&),)40&#5&#/.00/ 0*
A992
2
)$)+).$#))//,)& ),)40&#5).$ 8250

 2A

)$-.$)&//,)$)$2


-&),)40 &#5))+).

'))$+0&/,)*)##,/)),&5&) #&)&+$5&*)(+#)4*0&),)4 +0&/&*-)&-&5(+$&.),,/,

0#$ 26&/ ),-=% 6$)=/,0 %$),  )/&  &0-  5&,  /$+  &  #)4   )##,/)-,)$ )'=)##,$*$0;&,)',4 #)4&))0),)4)//0.)&)/0 =% 6$)=/,0%$), )/& 5.-&'+ #/0/'.)-)&5#,)',#)4&)*- #'0&=$ /,A0&=0 $) 8 &,'*+-/,0&#0 & #))+)#&  
>  0& *#+$ )5)$-5&/& ) #$/$&',5 "
.

Thus considering the facts and circumstances, it is held that the claim of the work person is based on the circular letters Ex.W4and W5, and her application to claim difference in salary is maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

.

Thus, the work person is held entitled to the difference in salary from 16.9.2009 to 31.3.2011 and full salary from 1.4.2011 to 24.2.2012 in accordance with circulars Ex.W4& W5. The work persons is also held entitled to the bonus for 2010/11 and 2011/12 A for Rs.

6604//. However the work person is not entitled to leave encashment as in her appointment letter in para 5, it is clearly mentioned that work person will not be eligible for leave encashment. Thus her claim for leave encashment is declined.


 In view of the above, application U/S 33C(2) is allowed. The management spondents are under obligation to pay the difference in salary for the period 16.9.2009 to 31.3.2011 and difference of salary from 1.4.2011 to 24.2.2012 minus what has already been paid to her and Rs. 6604// on account of bonus as per detail given below:

a) Payment on account of difference of salary from 16.9.2009 to 24.2.2012: Rs.405915// Bonus:

Rs. 6604// Paid during pendency of this petition:

Rs.83250// Balance to be paid by the respondents:

Rs.329269// .

The present application is disposed off accordingly. The management respondents are directed to pay the above amount within three months from the date of this order. It is also made clear that the above amount is subject to actual calculation on the basis of Ex.W4 and W5."

A &,  +  /  0  *  .$  $  $)$
>

8-#)0&*#+$$-7)&#5) ),)4$ 5.-&$#&)&=&). )4$&/.4#/$+&#)0&*#+$ )5)$  7)  #$  26&  /  ),-  =% 6$) =/,0%$), )/& (;)0&,)',4)$$'4,)$

)'=-/,0&#,#&1$+*0 &=:1)')$ )4)) +&=<-,$)-  

  

   





!"

##$% !& '

 

() *

+
#,-  )$  '*  &)  0)/  $  7    ' #).7)#$ 26&/ ),-=% 6$) =/,0%$), )/& > .50&),40//*)/-#$ 26 &  /  ),-  $)  =/,  0  %$/),  )/&-  )*,+)5)*&)5)- ) )+); 9

- 5 ,&6

9-5&')$)*#,40&#)$ #&&)&+$5&&*#,4*0#$ 
 &&)4#,)$+-)4.$//$ &0)/&)&),)45)'#)$'4&# )& $)',0)/-).),)',/$&)&#&))/$ '&),00 =% 6$)=/,0%$/), )/&)$),,& .&),)40#$ 
-5)$'4&=% 6 $)=/,0%$/), )/& @ &.5#0&=),004+5&& '.)*)$'4&=  

 - )

./ G& )(0/./#))+)#& #$/$&',5 "4. After hearing Mr. Monga at length and conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, the contention of the respondents does not seem to be substantiated by law.

Though Section 33C(1)(2)(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for mode of recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue, but this recovery is permissible against the employer. It is not in dispute that the Company was the

employer of the workmen. In so far as the reliance placed upon Section 149 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is concerned, these two sections deal with the offences committed by a person for not responding to the summons, notices, order or requisition of the revenue Officials by any person who may be the Incharge of the management of the Company, including Managing Director. But these Sections, by no stretch of imagination, can mean that such Managing Director or Incharge of the Company is personally liable to pay any amount due against the Company other than fine and the same can be recovered from the person or property of the Managing Director/Incharge of the Company, particularly when Company is employer and the employee is entitled to recover the amount from the assets of the Company. In the totality of the circumstances, the action of the respondents is totally illegal, unwarranted, unjustified and without any sanction of law.

These petitions accordingly succeed and the respondents are directed not to effect any recovery from the personal property of the petitioner. However, the respondents are at liberty to recover any amount under the award including under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute 25 Farm any property/assets of the Company, namely,M/s Cable Works (India) Ltd., Plot No. 71, Sector 25. Faridabad.

Disposed of.

A copy of this order be placed on record on each concerned file.

> Petitions allowed.'

9 &).+&+&&#,)$+)$&5 #  )$   ),  &  $/*  )##$$  5&  -  &)$  & )+*0,)$/,0&#))$+&+&&,)5 /$'4/,0&#
 &=)+*5&&#-)4&) &&)&+$5&&,)',4*#$'4&$), '),6/*6 )'=-)&)*5,$'#E#$ 26&/ ),-$)=/,0%$/), )/&-  )*,+)5)*&)5)- ) )+); 9

- 5 ,&6

9F-5&$#00/+0./&).

/& )##)'0&=-)&*0&)+0&#/) &0-5#),,5$

 $,)4&)&;/$&+&# 5#/,$),'$'4&#'4*.+) )##,/)'0&$),'),6/* )'=/,)04 &-'),H+&0)/&)&#),)$4'0& =0&,)*&)94)-&,+)$&+), 0* /-&##$#$0* 0& )0*$'.)  41'
&'*2'11 5 G')4-  &#)"!

rashmi   &&#)(+B)$ 4B &&#)',I 4B