AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Recovery Certificate dated 9.6.1999 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition).
It appears that an inspection was made on 14.2.1999 under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 in regard to the employment of one Satish (respondent No. 3) by the petitioner for title manufacture of tin trunk in the establishment/unit of the petitioner.
A Medical Certificate was also submitted by the Medical Officer, Saharanpur certifying that the age of the said Satish was approximately 13 years.
Copy of the said Inspection Report with the Certificate of the Medical Officer has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
Thereafter, a notice dated 13.4.1999 was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P., Saharanpur under the aforesaid Act to the petitioner requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of violation of section 3 of the said Act, in view of the order dated 10.12.1996 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 465 of 1986, M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and others.
Copy of the said notice dated 13.4.1999 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
As the amount mentioned in the said notice dated 13.4.1999 was not deposited by the petitioner, Recovery Certificate dated 9.6.1999 was sent by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Saharanpur to the Collector, Saharanpur.
Copy of the said Recovery Certificate dated 9.6.1999 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
The present writ petition has been filed on 18.11.2008 seeking reliefs as mentioned above.
It will be noticed that the writ petition has been filed more than 9 years after the issuance of the Recovery Certificate dated 9.6.1999.
In order to explain the delay in filing the writ petition, the petitioner has made averments in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the notice as well as Recovery Certificate/Citation was not served upon the petitioner and he had no knowledge about the recovery proceedings.
The above averments are totally vague as there is no disclosure as to when and how the petitioner came to know about the recovery proceedings against him.
There is no averment in the writ petition that no inspection was made of the establishment/unit of the petitioner on 14.2.1999 as mentioned in the Inspection Report of the said date, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
In fact, in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the said Satish was neither found in the firm of the petitioner on 14.2.1999, nor he was working as child labour in the firm of the petitioner on that day.
The averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition thus suggest that the petitioner was aware of the inspection having been made on 14.2.1999.
In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that he has been suffering from some disease since May, 1999. Photostat copy of the Medical Certificate has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition.
A perusal of the said Medical Certificate shows that the said Certificate is dated 11.5.1999 while it has been signed by the concerned Medical Practitioner on 3.11.200.8,. Evidently, therefore, the Medical Certificate on the face of it cannot be believed.
The disease which has been mentioned in the Certificate is "Disc Slip".
It cannot be believed that in case the petitioner was suffering from Disc-Slipin May, 1999, he would remain confined to bed for more than 9 years.
No medical prescriptions for the alleged illness have been filed by the petitioner.
The explanation regarding inordinate delay in filing the writ petition is neither satisfactory nor trustworthy, and the same cannot, therefore, be accepted.
In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of laches.