# Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 668
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2515 of 1992
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/verma-v-delhi-transport-corporation-42250
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section6-(1)-Labor Commissioner issued recovery
certificate for much and more amount than
claimed-where
undisputed
amount
2 All] U.P.State Road Transport Corporation V. State of U.P. and others
669
presupposes due can proceed but where
employer disputed liability-can not be
allowed to travel beyond jurisdiction-R.C.
Quashed-matter remitted back for fresh
consideration.

Held: Para 4

It is true that Section 6-H(1) of Act 1947 is
in
the
nature
of
execution
but
it
presupposes an amount due. Whenever
there is dispute as to whether an amount
is due or not or about the quantum of such
amount, the authority concerned cannot
treat
the
claim
of
workman
to
be
sacrosanct for issuing recovery certificate
but has to apply its mind and record a
finding that the amount is due after
considering the case set up by the
employer in this regard and it is under an
obligation in such a circumstance to pass a
speaking order determining as to what is
an
amount
due
for
which
recovery
certificate
has
to
be
issued.
It
a
mechanical manner it cannot issue a
recovery certificate for an amount claimed
by
the
workman
particularly
when
correctness of quantum and the claim set
up by the workman is disputed by the
employer otherwise it would amount to
issuing a recovery certificate ex parte
without considering the claim of the other
side on merits. A statutory authority
cannot be permitted to proceed in such a
matter as that would amount to misuse of
power and would result in travesty of
justice.

## Text

668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
3[*****]

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any
report of accidents forwarded to it under subsection (6) of Section 158 as an application
for compensation under this Act."

5. Section 163-A starts with nonabstante clause "Notwithstanding any thing
contained", therefore, it has an over-riding
effect on other sections of the Act.

6.

The
application
for
the
compensation is required to be moved under
Section 166 of the Act. Section 163-A
provides that the compensation is payable by
the owner or the insurer in the case of the
death or permanent disability. Section 163-A
(2) provides that it is not required to prove
wrongful act, negligence or default on the
part of the driver of the vehicle. Whether the
application has been moved under Section
166 or 163-A of the Act, in both the cases,
compensation has to be calculated under
Schedule II, provided under the Act in case
of death or permanent disability. In the
present case, the compensation has been
calculated under Schedule II of the Act. The
claimant claimed that the income of the
deceased was Rs.3300/= per month, but in
the absence of any evidence, notional income
of the deceased has been taken at Rs.3,000/=
per month, in view of the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
(supra). It appears that the claimant might
have not applied the proper multiplier as per
the Schedule and has not claimed the other
admissible compensation, which is normally
awarded. It is not the case where the Tribunal
has estimated higher income of the deceased
than the income claimed by the claimant. We
are of the view that even if the claimant
claimed less amount but in a case of death or
permanent disability, under the Statute, it is
required that the compensation is to be
calculated in accordance to the Schedule II of
the Act. Therefore, the compensation should
be calculated in accordance to Schedule II. In
the present case, the Tribunal has rightly
done so.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not find any error in calculation
of the amount of compensation by the
Tribunal, which is in accordance to the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation (supra). In the
result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
However, dismissal of the present appeal will
not affect rights of other parties.

8. The office is directed to remit back
the statutory amount to the concerned
Tribunal within four weeks.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2515 of 1992

U.P.State Road Transport Corporation

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and other ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shri Kant Sharma
Sri Samir Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri Pankaj Mittal

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section6-(1)-Labor Commissioner issued recovery
certificate for much and more amount than
claimed-where
undisputed
amount
2 All] U.P.State Road Transport Corporation V. State of U.P. and others
669
presupposes due can proceed but where
employer disputed liability-can not be
allowed to travel beyond jurisdiction-R.C.
Quashed-matter remitted back for fresh
consideration.

Held: Para 4

It is true that Section 6-H(1) of Act 1947 is
in
the
nature
of
execution
but
it
presupposes an amount due. Whenever
there is dispute as to whether an amount
is due or not or about the quantum of such
amount, the authority concerned cannot
treat
the
claim
of
workman
to
be
sacrosanct for issuing recovery certificate
but has to apply its mind and record a
finding that the amount is due after
considering the case set up by the
employer in this regard and it is under an
obligation in such a circumstance to pass a
speaking order determining as to what is
an
amount
due
for
which
recovery
certificate
has
to
be
issued.
It
a
mechanical manner it cannot issue a
recovery certificate for an amount claimed
by
the
workman
particularly
when
correctness of quantum and the claim set
up by the workman is disputed by the
employer otherwise it would amount to
issuing a recovery certificate ex parte
without considering the claim of the other
side on merits. A statutory authority
cannot be permitted to proceed in such a
matter as that would amount to misuse of
power and would result in travesty of
justice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Writ petition is directed against the
recovery certificate dated 21.10.1991 issued
by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P.
Meerut Region, Meerut on an application
filed by respondent workman under Section
6-H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1947")
wherein he had claimed only Rs.1,00,313/-
the amount payable to him from 1986 to
1990. The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
however, has issued recovery certificate,
impugned in this
writ petition, for
Rs.1,93,515/-.

2. Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that whatever
amount due to the workman concerned
under the award dated 09.3.1990 in
Adjudication Case No.148 of 1988 was
already paid to the workman concerned and
this was detailed in the reply submitted by
the petitioner-employer but without looking
into the reply given by the employer,
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner
in
a
mechanical manner has issued recovery
certificate and that too for a sum more than
the amount actually claimed by the
workman. It is true that Section 6-H(1) of
Act 1947 is in the nature of execution but it
presupposes an amount due. Whenever
there is dispute as to whether an amount is
due or not or about the quantum of such
amount, the authority concerned cannot
treat the claim of workman to be sacrosanct
for issuing recovery certificate but has to
apply its mind and record a finding that the
amount is due after considering the case set
up by the employer in this regard and it is
under an obligation in such a circumstance
to pass a speaking order determining as to
what is an amount due for which recovery
certificate has to be issued. It a mechanical
manner it cannot issue a recovery certificate
for an amount claimed by the workman
particularly when correctness of quantum
and the claim set up by the workman is
disputed by the employer otherwise it
would amount to issuing a recovery
certificate ex parte without considering the
claim of the other side on merits. A
statutory authority cannot be permitted to
proceed in such a matter as that would
amount to misuse of power and would
result in travesty of justice.
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

3. A perusal of workman's application
dated 20th February, 1991, a copy whereof
has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ
petition, it is evident that the workman
claimed that a sum of Rs.1,70,500/- became
due to him from 1986 to 1990 against which
he had received Rs.70,187/- and therefore
remaining unpaid amount of Rs.1,00,313/-,
which he claimed, is due to him. The
petitioner-employer in their reply, copy
whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition,
has clearly shown that whatever amount due
to the workman was already paid and the
amount he has claimed, no basis thereof has
been given and the said amount was not
payable to him. Without looking into the
dispute about actual claim set up by the
workman, in a mechanical manner and
without application of mind the Deputy
Labour Commissioner has issued recovery
certificate which is more than the amount
actually claimed by the workman and
recovery certificate of such an amount
could not have been issued. The said
recovery certificate is ex facie illegal and
cannot sustain.

4. It is true that Section 6-H(1) of Act
1947 is in the nature of execution but it
presupposes an amount due. Whenever
there is dispute as to whether an amount is
due or not or about the quantum of such
amount, the authority concerned cannot
treat the claim of workman to be sacrosanct
for issuing recovery certificate but has to
apply its mind and record a finding that the
amount is due after considering the case set
up by the employer in this regard and it is
under an obligation in such a circumstance
to pass a speaking order determining as to
what is an amount due for which recovery
certificate has to be issued. It a mechanical
manner it cannot issue a recovery certificate
for an amount claimed by the workman
particularly when correctness of quantum
and the claim set up by the workman is
disputed by the employer otherwise it
would amount to issuing a recovery
certificate ex parte without considering the
claim of the other side on merits. A
statutory authority cannot be permitted to
proceed in such a matter as that would
amount to misuse of power and would
result in travesty of justice.

5. The writ petition is allowed. The
recovery
certificate
dated
21.10.1991
(Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) issued
by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P.
Meerut Region, Meerut is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded to the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region,
Meerut to reconsider the matter and first of
all he will decide the question whether any
amount is due and payable to the workman
concerned and only thereafter after passing
the speaking order on this aspect, shall issue
recovery certificate, if any required.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.06.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ Petition No.2903 (MS) of 2012

Sardar Patel Institute of Technology

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Opp. Parties

Constitution of India, Article 226-writ of
mandamus-direction
to
allow
the
student
to
appear
in
B.Ed
courseexamination
2012-admittedly
the
institution was granted affiliation for 200
students-temporarily approval granted
by
unauthorized
person-canceledinstitution admitted 44 excess students
without any authority-held-in view of
direction
of
Laxmi
Sharma
Case-in