JUDGMENT
1. While issuing notice before admission to the respondents, this Court on February 12, 1996 made it clear that the writ petition itself would be heard and decided at the admission stage. All the respondents have been served.
2. Admit. Rule returnable forthwith.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Collector, Nagpur, had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated December 22, 1995 refusing to make recovery pursuant to the certificate issued to him by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the recovery of back wages as land revenue. According to the petitioner, it is a registered Trade Union of the employees working in the Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, Zilla Parishad, etc. and the Union has been constrained to file this writ petition since the Collector has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested under law to recover the amount of back wages payable to various employees for which recovery certificate has been issued and which was required to be recovered as land revenue. Without going into the facts extensively, suffice it to observe that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has issued the certificate dated July 26, 1995 under Section 33-C(1) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for recovering the amount of Rs. 37,039/- as land revenue from the Executive Engineer P.W.D., Dn. No. 1 Sadar, Nagpur, and the Deputy Engineer, P.W.D. Dn. No. II, Sadar, Nagpur (vide Annexure II) the certificate dated September 29, 1995 for recovering the amount of Rs. 2,47,635/- being the amount of back wages as land revenue from the employer, viz., the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Dn. No. II, Sadar, Nagpur; the certificate dated July 14, 1995 for recovering the amount of Rs. 97,088-45, being the amount of back wages as land revenue from the employer, viz., the Executive Engineer, Integrated Division, Medical P.W.D., Medical College, Nagpur; the certificate dated July 29, 1995 for recovering the amount of Rs. 41,302/- towards the payment of back wages as arrears of land revenue from the employer, viz., Sub-Divisional Engineer, Ramtek Re-modelling Sub-Division No. 1, Tarsa, and the Executive Engineer, Ramtek Re-modelling Division, Bhandara, the certificate dated July 29, 1995 for recovering the amount of Rs. 41,302/- towards the payment of back wages as arrears of land revenue from the employer, viz., Sub-Divisional Engineer, Ramtek Re-modelling Sub-Division No. 1, Tarsa, and the Executive Engineer, Ramtek Re-modelling Division, Bhandara; and the certificate dated July 29, 1995 for recovering the amount of Rs. 41,302/- being the amount of back wages as arrears of land revenue from the employer, viz. the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Ramtek Re-modelling Sub-Division No. 1 Tarsa, and the Executive Engineer, Ramtek Re-modelling Division, Bhandara. All these certificates were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Collector, Nagpur, for the recovery of the amounts mentioned in the certificates as land revenue.
14. Despite the fact that the certificates were issued way back in the month of June and July, 1995, which related to the back wages of the employees the Collector, Nagpur, did not, recover the said amounts as arrears of land revenue promptly and on the other hand, by an order dated December 22, 1995 refused to proceed with the recovery by observing that the recovery of the amount mentioned in the certificates would not be proper. The Collector, Nagpur observed thus :
“With reference to the subject mentioned above, you are informed that in view of the paras 1 and 2 of the letter No. 8222/AKA/CS/ULP/95 dated September 19, 1995 sent by the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Nagpur, he has requested to stay the recovery in order to avoid unnecessary complications.
Moreover, the Chief Executive Officer vide its Letter dated ZPN/B/Court Case/3519/95 dated November 14, 1995 requested this office to stay the effect of the recovery till further order of the High Court.
Hence in the above matter to make the recovery would not be proper”.
5. The above said order passed by the Collector, Nagpur, on December 22, 1995 refusing to make the recovery of the amounts mentioned in the certificates, is impugned in the present writ petition.
6 . Shri P. D. Kothari, the learned A.G.P appearing for the Collector, Nagpur and other Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, was unable to justify the order passed by the Collector.
7. As observed above the various employees, who are members of the petitioner Union, were not paid their back wages to which they were entitled to. Accordingly they were constrained to make applications under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court and the said applications were allowed and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 issued the aforesaid certificates, directing the Collector, Nagpur, to recover the amounts mentioned in the certificates as arrears of land revenue. Once the certificates were sent to the Collector, Nagpur, for recovery of arrears of land revenue, it was the duty of the Collector, who was the Recovery Officer, to recover the amounts due to the workmen and should not and would not have refused to recover the amount due to the workmen as arrears of land revenue, by observing that it would not be so proper.
8. Chapter XI of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short ‘the Land Revenue Code’) dealt with realisation of land revenue and other revenue demands. Section 176, which falls in Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Code, provides that an arrear of land revenue may be recovered by any one or more of the processes mentioned in Section 176. The said recovery of arrears of land revenue may be made either by serving a written notice of demand on the defaulter under Section 178 and/or by forfeiture of the occupancy or alienated holding in respect of which the arrear is due under Section 179, and/or by distraint and sale of the defaulter’s movable property under Section 180, and/or by attachment and sale of the defaulter’s movable property under Section 181, and/or by attachment of the defaulter’s immovable property under Section 182, and/or by arrest and imprisonment of the defaulter under Sections 183 and 184, subject to the conditions mentioned in the said Section. Thus, once the recovery certificate is issued to the Recovery Officer, in the present case to the Collector, it was the bounden duty of the Recovery Officer to ensure that the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate is recovered by following the process mentioned in Section 176 of the Land Revenue Code. Not only that the Recovery Officer is required to proceed promptly and expeditiously, he is further expected to ensure that the amount sought to be recovered under the certificate as land revenue is recovered without any loss of time. The Land Revenue Code does not confer any discretion upon the Recovery Officer to proceed or not to proceed with the recovery under the certificate as recovery of the land revenue and it is not open to the Recovery Officer to say that it would not be proper to recover the amounts mentioned in the certificates. Law casts duty upon the Recovery Officer to recover the amount required to be recovered as arrears of land revenue by following the process provided under the Land Revenue Code and cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction vested in it nor can he refuse to discharge the duty cast upon it in recovering the amount under the certificate issued under Section 176(1) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as land revenue. Section 191 of the Land Revenue Code, of course, requires that if a defaulter has been detained in custody, or imprisoned, in execution of the process issued under Section 176 of the Code, and if the defaulter gives the security in the form of Schedule B to the satisfaction of the Collector, then he shall be released forthwith. Sub-section (2) of Section 191 makes a provision that the defaulter may pay the amount claimed under protest to the Recovery Officer and in case such payment is made, the proceedings shall stand stayed. Similarly, under Section 197, if the defaulter has failed to pay the arrears of land revenue in respect of which the property is to be sold, before the property is knocked down in such action, if he furnishes security as provided under Section 191, such sale shall be stayed. It is thus apparent that it is only when the amount has been paid under protest before the Recovery Officer, further proceedings under Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Code shall remain stayed, or where the defaulter has been detained in custody or imprisoned or the property is to be sold, on furnishing the security to the satisfaction of the Recovery Officer, such defaulter, if imprisoned, shall be released and the sale of the property, if to be sold, shall be stayed, and not otherwise. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector, Nagpur, on December 22, 1995 reveals that he has acted on two letters; one writter by the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Nagpur, requesting him to stay the recovery of the amount mentioned in the certificates; and the letter dated November 14, 1995 written by the Chief Executive Officer to stay the effect of the recovery. Acting upon the said two letters, the Collector, Nagpur, held that it would not be proper to recover the amounts. It is really strange that the Collector, Nagpur, failed to discharge his duty under law in recovering the amount under the certificates issued under Section 176(1) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, towards the payment of back wages as arrears of land revenue on the basis of the two letters : One written by the Superintending-Engineer, P.W.D., Nagpur, and the other by the Chief Executive Officer, without adverting to the provisions contained in the Land Revenue Code meant for recovery of the arrears of land revenue. The order passed by the Collector, Nagpur on December 22, 1995, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
9. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Collector, Nagpur, on December 22, 1995 (Annexure V) is quashed and set aside, and he is directed to proceed with the recovery of the amounts under the certificates as arrears of land revenue, forthwith. No costs, Ruli is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.