Sh. Radhey Shyam v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad & Anr.

arrived at between the parties, to be a legal settlement. He submits that the petitioner, during the conciliation proceedings had agreed to receive an advance amount and had not accepted full and final settlement of the amount in dispute. C.W.P. No. 13779 of 2009. -2- As a matter of fact, the wife of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and, therefore, he immediately needed money to get her treated. Respondent No. 2/Management had, taking advantage of the situation of the petitioner, got recorded the settlement, which has been placed on record by respondent No. 2/Management as Annexure-R-2/1, dated 20.01.1996. He submits that as per Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, the settlement should have been sent as per Clause (4), to the Central Government, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) concerned.

That having not been done, the settlement cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, no reliance on the same should have been made by the Labour Court, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner/workman, vide its award dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1). He relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Technological Institute of Textiles Versus Its workmen and others, 1965 Vol.-II L.L.J. 149, and a Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Wings Wear (P) Ltd. Versus Workmen as rep by Wings Wears Workers Lal Jhanda Union, 1996 (4) S.C.T. 93. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2/Management submits that the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner/workman and respondent No. 2-Management came to an end in the year, 1990, and thereafter, a demand was made by the petitioner/workman. The matter was considered by the State Government and on two occasions rejected the demand and did not refer the matter under the Industrial Disputes Act.

This rejection was challenged by the petitioner/workman by way of C.W.P. No. 94 of 1992. During the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, a settlement dated 20.01.1996 was entered into between the C.W.P. No. 13779 of 2009. -3- petitioner/workman and respondent No. 2/Management. Referring to the said settlement, he submits that it has been specifically stated in the settlement itself that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, is now pending before the High Court and in the light of the settlement entered into between the parties, the copy of the settlement was to be sent to the High Court as well. Apart from the High Court, the same was to be sent to the Secretary, Government Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, Labour Commissioner, Haryana, 38-Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh, and Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Sector-7-A, Faridabad. In the said settlement, there is a recital that an amount of Rs.

65,000/- was to be paid through payees account cheque and the same was paid through a cheque No. 846186 dated 20.01.1996 payable at Canara Bank, Faridabad, on account of full and final settlement of present and future claims of the petitioner/workman from the respondent No. 2/Management. The petitioner/workman agreed to forgo his right to reinstatement and re- employment. The payment of the amount as settled between the parties was to be made before the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Faridabad. On the basis of the said settlement, the parties appeared before the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-II, Faridabad, on 22.01.1996, where in the presence of Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-II, Faridabad, receipt dated 22.01.1996 was executed by the petitioner/workman. The copy of the receipt has been appended as Annexure- R-2/2. A perusal of the same indicates that the receipt was executed by the petitioner/workman and was witnessed by the Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer, Circle-II, Faridabad, as also one Shri Brahamanand.

He, therefore, contends that the petitioner/workman having executed the agreement and the settlement having been entered into between the parties, C.W.P. No. 13779 of 2009. -4- cannot now be allowed to resile, at a later stage, having availed the benefit of the settlement. His further contention is that it was never the claim of the petitioner/workmen in his claim petition before the Labour Court that he had, as a matter of fact, received any amount from the respondent No. 2/Management. He concealed the factum of settlement and it was only when the respondent No. 2/Management in its written reply to the claim petition, had brought the facts to the notice of the Labour Court that in his statement before the Labour Court, the petitioner/workman had now culled out a story to come out of the settlement. It is an afterthought and, therefore, the Labour Court on consideration of the evidence and the pleadings, had rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner/workman is not entitled to any claim in the light of the settlement.

He on this basis prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The execution of the agreement/settlement dated 20.01.1996 (Annexure-R-2/1) is not disputed as also the receipt dated 22.01.1996. It is, however, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the contents thereof were not as per the settlement between the parties as the petitioner had only claimed advance payment in the light of illness of his wife. These two documents do not suggest or recite any of these aspects as has been put forth by the petitioner now. The settlement clearly talks about pendency of the writ petition. It further shows that an amount of Rs. 65,000/- paid through payees account cheque No. 846186, dated 20.01.1996 to the petitioner/workman, was towards the full and final settlement of present and future claims of the petitioner/workman from the respondent/Management.

Had this been the case C.W.P. No. 13779 of 2009. -5- of the petitioner/workman before the Labour Court as has now been sought to be projected by the petitioner that it was only an advance payment, which was received by the petitioner/workman, the same should have found mention in the claim petition made before the Labour Court. For the first time before the Labour Court during his statement before the Labour Court, this stand had been taken. In the light of the specific execution of the documents and contents thereof as also the execution not being disputed with regard to the settlement and receipt of amount, the contention of petitioner cannot be accepted. Further receipt dated 22.01.1996 (Annexure-R-2/2) was made in the presence of the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-II, Faridabad. This receipt also contains a recital that the amount of Rs. 65,000/- through cheque has been received by the petitioner/workman towards full and final settlement of all dues whatsoever including service compensation, gratuity notice pay, earned wages, leave with wages upto date etc.

Had the petitioner/workman not accepted the settlement dated 20.01.1996 (Annexure- R-2/1), had this situation not been correct, the petitioner would have pointed it out to the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-II, Faridabad. This further shows that the settlement dated 20.01.1996 as has been entered into between the parties, which has been placed on record as Annexure-R-2/1, was indeed executed by the petitioner/workman after understanding the contents thereof and its affect as well. As has been stated above, the stand of advance payment was an afterthought. The settlement having been duly executed between the parties as is apparent from Annexure-R-2/1 and Annexure-R-2/2, now the question, which needs consideration of this Court is as to “whether the provisions as contained under Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, C.W.P. No. 13779 of 2009. stands complied with or not”. -6- A perusal of the said Rule primarily suggest that firstly a settlement between the parties has to be entered into.

That settlement having been executed between the parties, rest of the requirements were procedural in nature. After this Court had accepted the factum of the execution of settlement between the parties, the non forwarding of the settlement to the authorities concerned, as has been mentioned in Rule 58 of the Rules, would only be a procedural lapse on the part of the parties. It would not be out of way to mention that Rule 58 Clause (4) of the Rules puts responsibility of sending the copy of settlement on both the parties. It was as much the responsibility of the petitioner/workman to send the copy of settlement to the authorities concerned as mentioned in Rule 58 Clause (4) as of the respondent No. 2/Management. The judgments, which have been relied by counsel for the petitioner/workmen, are distinguishable on facts and law as well. In the case of Technological Institute of Textiles Versus Its workmen and others (supra), the question before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was as to whether the settlement would be binding between the parties qua the issues which have not been settled between the parties, although, the same had been referred to for adjudication before the Labour Court.

That case was with regard to the fact that during the pendency of the reference, the settlement was entered into between the parties. As regards the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Wings Wear (P) Ltd. Versus Workmen as rep by Wings Wears Workers Lal Jhanda Union (supra), a perusal of the same would show that the Court itself has stated that once the existence of the settlement has been admitted and the same has been acted upon by both the parties, the parties are estopped C.W.P. No. 13779 of 2009. -7- from challenging the same at any later stage. This judgment , therefore, would not of any help to the petitioner. The settlement having been executed between the parties as has been stated above, at this stage the petitioner/workman cannot be allowed to withdraw or to resile from the same. Having taken the benefit of settlement and having enjoyed the fruits thereof, he cannot be allowed to backtrack from it and, thus, he would not be entitled to further claim in the light of the settlement.

The findings as recorded by the Labour Court are based on the evidence and pleadings led by the parties. There is no illegality in the conclusion, which has been drawn by the Labour Court, which would call for any interference by this Court. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. January 27, 2010. sjks. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE