M/S Hamdard Waqf Labourarities v. State Of U.P. And 17 Others

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. 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. 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 SHARMA Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad