High CourtsSingle Bench(1983) 04 P&H CK 0070

Kundan Singh vs Moga Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 April 1983 · Citation: (1987) 62 CompCas 600

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.S. Tewatia, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2010 of 1978

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 251 words

D.S. Tewatia, J.—Kundan Singh, petitioner, who was the managing director of Moga Transport Co. (P,) Ltd. at the relevant time has impugned the direction contained in letter No. EMP/3232, dated February 16, 1976, from the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, to the Collector, District Faridkot (annexure P-4), to effect recovery of the wages of the workers found due against the company under various awards from the personal property of the petitioner, on the ground that the managing director could not be made personally liable for the dues recoverable from the limited company.

2.

No written statement has been filed nor any opposition has been entered to this writ petition despite service.

3.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, has sought to sustain the afore-mentioned ground from the ratio of a Division Bench decision, of this court in Surinder Nath Khosla Vs. Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Another, . This court in Surinder Nath Khosla''s case held that unless the statute in question made the managing director of a company personally liable for the dues recoverable from the company, he could not be held personally responsible.

4.

Neither in the company law nor in the Industrial Disputes Act does any provision making the managing director personally liable for recovery of dues against the limited company exist.

5.

In view of the above, I hold that the direction contained in annexure P-4 is clearly illegal and the same is, therefore, quashed. The writ petition is allowed, but with no order as to costs.