SARDAR DILSHAR SINGH versus THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 12-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SARDAR DILSHAR SINGH 
v. 
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY 
AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 : 
C 
Ss.67 and 69-An·ears of land revenue-Recovery of-Order for attach-
D 
E 
F 
G 
ment of movable prope1ties-Def aulter avoiding to appear before Collec-
tor-Issuance of wanwit of a1rest challenged by defaulter for want of prior 
notice-Held, issuance of plior notice would frustrate effectivity of the 
provision. 
The appellant was the partner of a firm. The workmen of the firm 
had an adjudication in the Labour Court under s33-C(2) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act 1947 for recovery of arrears of salary etc. The Labour Court 
issued a certificate to the District Collector to have a sum of Rs. 62,843.50, 
due to the workmen, recovered from the partnership firm as appears of 
Jand revenue. When the bailiff went to the appellant with the order of 
attachment of his movable properties, the appellant assured that he 
would appear before the Collector. Since the appellant did not turn up, a 
warrant of arrest was issued against him. The appellant challenged the 
order before the High Court which declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the 
appellant filed the appeal by special leave. 
It was contended by the, appellant that the procedure prescribed in 
ss.67 and 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 was unfair, improper 
and vitiated Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution inasmuch a defaulter 
could not be arrested without a proper notice of arrest. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under s.67 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, a 
procedure has been laid down enumerating various modes in which land 
revenue could be recovered from any person or more. Clause (bi thereof 
H envisages that reco".ery could be effected by arrest and detention of the 
574 
S.D. SINGH v. LABOUR COMMNR. 
575 
defaulter. The Act does not contemplate issuance of any prior notice before A 
warrant of arrest is issued. The procedure of issuance of prior notice tends 
to frustrate the effectivity of clause (b) of s.67 of the Act and could aid as 
a lever to avoid process of recovery by arrest and detention. (576-C, 577-C] 
1.2. When the movable properties were sought to be attached1' the 
appellant himself had undertaken to appear before the Collector but he 
did not turn up. Rather he avoided the process. Therefore, the question 
whether prior notice should be given has become redundant. (577-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2690 of 
1980 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.80 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.W.P. No. 1006 of 1980. 
Rajiv Sawhney, M.G. Ramachandran for the Appellant. 
S.N. Terdol, Ms. Shashi Kiran and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from an order dated October 24, 
1980 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court. 
The undisputed facts are that the appellant is a partner of Dr. Sahib 
Singh and Sons. While doing business in Delhi, the workmen had an 
adjudication in the Labour Court under s.33-C(2) of the Industrial disputes 
Act, 1947, for recovery of arrears of salary, bonus etc. The Labour Court 
had certified under s.33-C(l) that a sum of Rs. 62, 843.50 was due to them 
and issued a certificate to the District Collector to have it recovered from 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the partnership firm as arrears of land revenue. It is not disputed before 
us that on July 8, 1980, the bailiff of the Collector had gone to the appellant G 
and sought to attach his movable properties. He then assured the bailiff 
that he would appear before the Collector but admittedly he never turned 
up. On July 20, 1980 the bailiff came with a warrant of arrest against the 
appellant. Calling the order of arrest in question, a writ petition came to 
be filed but was dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the proce-
dure prescribed in ss.67 and 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 
(Punjab Act No. 17 of 1987) is unfair, improper and vitiated Articles 21 
and 14 of the Constitution. He urged that without prior notice of arrest a 
defaulter cannot be arrested. Neither Section 67 nor Section 69 prescribes 
such a procedure. Therefore, it will be unjust, oppressive and arbitrary 
exercise of power. 
We do not find any substance i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.