Writ Petition No. 45663 of 1993 · Supreme Court
Case Details
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66898 of 2014 Petitioner :- M/S Hamdard Waqf Labourarities Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ateeq Ahmad Khan,Mohd. Saleem Khan,Ravi Kant Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bushra Maryam Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Heard Mr. Mohammed Saleem Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen. The case has a chequered history. The present 16 private respondents along with others were terminated by the petitioner establishment on 9.9.1983, ostensibly arising from an occurrence of an illegal and violent strike, wherein certain machinery of the factory establishment were damaged and certain personnel of the petitioner establishment physically assaulted. It is true, that termination order was not preceded by any domestic enquiry proceedings. It lead to reference of an industrial dispute, in Adjudication Case No.275 of 1987- to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad. During pendency of that Adjudication Case, the petitioner entered into a settlement with other workmen (who were also in dispute). Thus, the dispute survived with respect to the present respondents only. Vide its award dated 26.5.1993, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of all the workmen, together with 50% back wages. The petitioner felt dissatisfied with that award. It was assailed in Writ Petition No.45663 of 1993. That writ petition was dismissed on 3.11.1995. The Special Leave Petition filed there- against was also dismissed vide order dated 26.4.1996, by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the case of the respondent-workmen, they were not reinstated despite dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, by the Supreme Court. They continued to press for execution of the award dated 26.5.1993. At that stage, on 1.7.1996, the present respondents were suspended with reference to the occurrence of alleged violent strike- in the year 1983. Upon suspension order passed, domestic enquiry was conducted and fresh termination order was passed on 10.10.1998. It led to fresh reference of the dispute giving rise to the present proceedings. Thus, fresh reference was made to the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.4 of 2013. It may be noted that above reference came to be made upon observations made by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by certain workmen and also another petition filed by the present petitioner. Be that as it may. Upon that second reference made, the present award dated 1.7.2014 has arisen wherein the Labour Court has again awarded relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages. Whichever way one may look at the issue, it is disquieting to note- that the industrial dispute has remained simmering for a long period of 39 years, since it occurred. The continued existence of industrial dispute for such a long period clearly explores the weakness in the law. The beneficial legislation was enacted and is enforced to pre-empt industrial disputes, and/or to ensure they are addressed in a timely manner so that industrial unrest does not boil over, beyond the point of tolerance. Also, continued existence of industrial dispute is antithetical, both to the law and to the interest of the stakeholders namely the industry and the workmen. While the above observations have been made to note the concern of the Court, at the same time it also cannot be lost sight, 39 long years lost cannot allow the clock to be turned back. All workmen have crossed the age of superannuation. Some have died. Therefore to bring an end to the distress, upon hearing the matter at some length, it was proposed to both parties to seek amicable settlement so that the proceedings that have continued till today may come to an end and with some dignity if not justice to the parties. In the spirit of that suggestion made,
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for both the parties have made serious efforts to achieve a mutually acceptable settlement. Though sharp variance existed in initial stages of the negotiation inasmuch as the petitioner proposed a sum of around Rupees 3 lakhs to each workman, the workmen were claiming in excess of rupees 7.5 lakhs, however, today it was first proposed by Ms. Bushra Maryam that the workmen would be content if a sum of Rupees 6 lakhs (in all) may be paid to each of the workmen or their legal representatives, in lieu of all existing claims and disputes raised between the parties. Thus, it was proposed, if an amount of rupees 6 lakhs is paid to each of the workman or his legal representative (as a unit), they would neither claim any further amount towards back wages nor towards gratuity nor interest etc.
Legal Reasoning
Upon telephonic consultation made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the aforesaid offer is acceptable to the petitioner and it is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rupees 6 lakh each of the workman (except respondent no.17/ Faheem Ahmed) in the present petition or their legal representatives (taken as one unit) as the case may be, such that no further amount may be due and payable by the petitioner to any of the 16 respondents.
Decision
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in entering in the adjudication of the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions : In light of the settlement reached in the present proceeding the award dated 01.07.2014 in Adjudication Case No. 4 of 2013 is modified to the extent that in place of relief of reinstatement and back wages, each of the following respondent/ workman- Irshad Mohammad Khan, Amir Haider, Inamur Rahman, Mahmood Khan, Azizur Rahman, Liyaqat Ali, Aameer Razma Khan, Abdul Ghafoor, Sahabuddin, Anees Ahmad, Sarafat Ali, Zainul Hasan, Mohmmad Meharbaan, Gohar Ali and Imtiyaz Ahmad would be entitled to payment of Rupees 6 lakhs each as full and final payment within a period of one month towards the rights and dues claimed by such workmen or their legal representatives, either under the impugned award or any other pre-existing or other claim under any other order passed by any authority either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) or the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (State Act) or Payment of Gratuity Act or The Employees State Insurance Act or Provident Fund Act or any other law. In so far as respondent no.17 Faheem Ahmad is concerned while entertaining the present writ petition, vide order dated 12.12.2014, it was provided that the amount awarded to him may be paid. That observation was made since the respondent no.17 alone had not attained the age of superannuation. According to the affidavit of compliance filed by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.5,90,753/- had been thus paid to the said respondent, at the relevant time. However no settlement could be reached with respect to that one workman/ respondent no.17 namely Faheem Ahmad. The learned counsel for the parties have then left it to the court to pass appropriate orders in that respect. In view of the fact that the dispute between 15 out of 16 workmen has been settled between the parties, and further in view of the fact that similar amounts was paid to the Faheem Ahmed under interim order granted by this Court and further keeping in mind, according to learned counsel for the respondents, he had only about 3 months service remaining at the time of the interim order being passed, it is further provided that he may be paid further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. That suggestion has been accepted by learned counsel for both sides. The court record its appreciation of the fair conduct of learned counsel for the parties on both sides. Order Date :- 13.5.2022/ Shiv Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.05.19 11:10:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad