The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (MOHD. ISHRAR QURAISHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

18-12-2018 Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Sudeep Chaterjee, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The petitioners before this Court are the son and the daughter of late Abdul Haneef Quraishi, who was an employee of MPRTC and had claimed retiral dues of their father. The case filed by petitioners before the Labour Court, Bhopal was decided on 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1), whereby the M.P. Road Transport Corporation was directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,73,185.00. Thereafter, in compliance of the aforesaid order, an RRC was issued to the office of the Collector, Bhopal on 12.02.2018. But despite issuance of RRC (Annexure P/2), no action has been initiated by the Collector to recover the amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the similar circumstances this Court passed an order in W.P. No.13553/2016 in the case of Smt. Suman Saxena Vs. State of M.P. has held as under: "€œIt is contended by the petitioner that"the Award dated 18.11.2014 was passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh the Labour Court, Bhopal; whereby, the petitioner was Awarded Rs.765262/-. It is further contended that the petitioner preferred an application before the concerned court for execution of Award. The Labour Court by order dated 29.10.2015 issued Revenue Recovery Certificate towards the difference of wages.

It is submitted that respondent No.2, who is under obligation to execute the said Revenue Recovery Certificate is sitting over the matter and is not inclined to act upon the same. It is accordingly urged that direction be given to the respondent No.2 to execute the Revenue Recovery Certificate.

Response has been filed by Collector, Bhopal wherein it is not disputed that Revenue Recovery Certificate is pending for recovery of dues. It is contended on behalf of respondents that in pursuance to RRC, a kurki warrant was issued against MPRTC in furtherance of which a report was filed by the corporation stating therein that MPRTC is not in possession of any movable or immovable property as the property has already been attached by the R.T.O.

However, in the considered opinion of this Court, if MPRTC is no more in existence, assets and liabilities vest with the State Government, therefore, State and its functionaries are still under obligation to recovery the amount and pay it to the workman.

Accordingly, the petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to execute the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 29.10.2015 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law."

Applying to the aforesaid facts, it appears that the present case is identical to W.P. No.13553/2016.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to execute the R.R.C. dated 12.02.2018 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of Certified copy as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE vkt V TI I W NO A D RI KUMAR DDJP26s7KD A e .r U iN a 5a r g B c 1 tM i . : d4 a i b e A tc e l . :A a 7 L 2 N = 2 s l c bR P 0 I h u 0 y 5 N 5 U = T , m 1 a 0 s, 5 R I 8 1 i W o 1b g 0 , . f = 1 6 p e42 n A2 f H r o 9f e 2R 5 = . 0 s 1 Id 4I 6 G 1 t a 9 d a 3 b 2 H 5 3 l 1 6 1 y C c 5 2 C 2 da o V f : 1 O 60 4 a d IN 3e8 Ue b9a : O =R 1 0 f1 7 D 4T 2 6 5 6 8 5 6 O + c K 2 c e 2 6 0 UF 9 0 3 c 8 5 8 MM 5 a ' 3 3 4 83 AA a 0 1 6 4f RD d ' , ,c s 5 a HT 8 t 6 8 I 5 =YW 4 2 e MA 9 A a 3 7 P , R d c 9 RI n7 h e A =8 5 yD 7 a e V E 0 f I d S N2 H 8 O6 1 2D 6 7 4