HMM Coaches Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner-management has approached this court challenging the recovery certificate issued by Labour Commissioner, Haryana for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- payable to the family of deceased- Mam Chand, in terms of which even Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ambala had also issued summons to the petitioner on 12.6.2012 for appearance on 21.6.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the deceased was not the workman, he could not approach the Labour Commissioner under the provisions of Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the 1947 Act''). The petitioner in reply to the notice received from the Labour Commissioner had raised this objection. Without adjudicating the legal issue, directly a recovery certificate has been issued. He further submitted that a workman or his family could approach the Labour Commissioner only for recovery of the amount due under the 1947 Act. He further submitted that even in terms of the settlement arrived at between the management and the representatives of the employees working in the factory, after the death of Mam Chand, on 22.6.2009, the management had paid a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the family of deceased-Mam Chand vide cheque dated 15.7.2009. At the most, in addition thereto Rs. 1,00,000/- had been undertaken to be paid by the management. The recovery could be sought only to that extent and not Rs. 1,50,000/-. At the time of settlement, it was agreed that Rs. 1,50,000/- were to be paid as a grant to the family of the deceased, out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- were to be paid by the management and Rs. 50,000/- by the staff working in the factory.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. As is evident from the settlement arrived at between the management and the representatives of the employees working in the factory of the petitioner, u/s 12(3) of the 1947 Act on account of death of Mam Chand while on duty, the management agreed to pay to the family of the deceased compensation as payable under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ''the 1923 Act''). In addition, it was agreed that the management will pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the family of the deceased as a grant and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- will be paid by the employees working in the factory. In terms thereof, though the management had paid a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the family of the deceased as payable under the 1923 Act vide cheque dated 15.7.2009, however, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as settled on 22.6.2009 was not paid.

The widow and two minor children of deceased-Mam Chand filed application before the Labour Commissioner u/s 33C (1) of the 1947 Act. Though the management sought to raise legal objection regarding maintainability of the application and also the fact that even as per the settlement only Rs. 1,00,000/- were payable by the management, the Labour Commissioner issued certificate for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the petitioners, in terms of which even summons were issued by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ambala.

No doubt, as per the settlement, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to the amount payable under the 1923 Act as a grant to the family of the deceased-employee, however, that settlement had taken place way back on 22.6.2009. The petitioner, though in terms of settlement, had paid the amount due under the 1923 Act, but still the amount of grant was not paid. More than three years have elapsed. Even if in the settlement it has not been provided for that on account of delay the family of the deceased-workman will be entitled to interest, but still considering the fact that delay is inordinate, this court finds that family of the deceased is also entitled to interest on account of delay in payment of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As period of three years have elapsed, if calculated @ 12% per annum, the interest itself will come out to Rs. 36,000/- Further, the family of the deceased was made not only to wait for this amount of compensation, but had to even approach the Labour Commissioner. The application was filed by them on 17.2.2010, which remained pending for a period of about two years. They had to even engage a counsel there. Considering the aforesaid part, Rs. 14,000/- can be considered to be cost payable to the family of the deceased-workman. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner is required to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as against Rs. 1,00,000/- agreed to be paid by it in terms of the settlement dated 22.6.2009. The amount shall now be paid to the widow within a period of one month and intimation thereof be sent to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana as well as Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ambala. In addition to that, the Labour Commissioner should take appropriate steps for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the staff of the unit, as undertaken by them in the settlement.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.