Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam for the petitioner; Sri Vinay Khare for the contesting respondent No. 3; and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur whereby, in exercise of power under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1978), he has directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,14,563/- from the petitioner-Company towards arrears of salary allegedly payable to the respondent No. 3, who claims himself to be a staff welfare officer. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential recovery certificate dated 14.10.2009 as also the order dated 12.3.2010 by which the application of the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 20.7.2009 has been rejected as not maintainable.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 3 of Act, 1978 claiming, inter alia, that pursuant to the notification dated 30.6.2000, he was entitled for a raise in salary with effect from January, 1996 and, as such, was entitled to arrears payable up to June, 2008, which comes to Rs. 16,14,563.87p. It was claimed that the employer (the petitioner herein) had failed to pay and, therefore, the said amount be recovered from the employer and be paid to him. On the aforesaid application, the Deputy Labour Commissioner proceeded to issue notice to the employer and as no one responded to the notice, passed an order dated 20.7.2009 thereby directing recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue. Pursuant to the said order, on 14.10.2009, a recovery certificate was issued. At this stage, the petitioner applied for recall of the order dated 20.7.2009 claiming that the order was passed ex parte and that the petitioner was not served with any notice of the proceedings. The recall application was rejected by order dated 12.3.2010 on the ground that it was not maintainable.

4. The petitioner has challenged the recovery order as well as consequential recovery proceedings on three grounds : (a) that for an individual dispute the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1978 cannot be invoked in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1994 SC 536; (b) that the dispute has been raised after 13 years, inasmuch as difference of wages from 1996 up to 2008 were sought and as such the claim had become stale and time barred; and (c) that the petitioner had taken over the assets under the sanctioned scheme of the B.I.F.R. and, therefore, its relation with the respondent No. 3, if any, came into existence in the year 2005 and, as such, the petitioner was not liable for the dues, if any, payable since 1996.

5. In support of the submission that the provisions of the Act, 1978 could not have been invoked for an individual dispute, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd (supra) where the Apex Court observed as follows :

“It will thus be clear from the preamble, the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the provisions of the Act that, firstly, the Act has been placed on the Statute-Book to ensure timely payment of wages by the bigger establishment, the incidence of disturbance of industrial peace being greater in such establishments on account of the default in payment of wages. Secondly, the Act deals with defaults in payment of the wage bill of all the workmen in the establishment. It is not meant to provide a remedy for the default in payment of wages of individual workmen. That can be taken care of by the provisions of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 which provisions are found inadequate to ensure timely payment of wages of the whole complement of workmen in an establishment.”

6.