Shri Prakash Chand vs M/S Superex Industries
2009 Latest Caselaw 3386 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C.) No. 3920/2008 and C.M. No. 7590/2008(for stay)

%                  Date of Decision: 26th August, 2009

#     SHRI PRAKASH CHAND
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate.

                                VERSUS

$     M/S SUPEREX INDUSTRIES
                                                  .....RESPONDENT

^                  Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workman in this petition seeks to challenge an order dated

19.09.2006 passed by the Labour Court dismissing his claim under

Section 33-C(2) for an amount of Rs. 9,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- on account of

earned wages for the month of September, 1997; Bonus of Rs. 3,000 for

the year 1997; overtime of Rs. 1,500/- and Earned Leave encashment of

Rs. 1,500/-).

2. The petitioner had resigned from the service of the respondent

w.e.f. 25.09.1997 after settling his account with the management and

receiving the full and final payment from the respondent by means of a

cheque. The written request made by the petitioner for resigning the

service of the respondent has been proved by the management as

document Ex. MW-1/2. The request made by the petitioner for

settlement of his account is proved as Ex. MW-1/1. The management of

the respondent had made the payment to the petitioner in full and final

settlement by means of a cheque, copy of which was proved before the

Labour Court by the management as Ex. MW-1/4 and the copy of the

Settlement Deed was also proved as document Ex. MW-1/5.

3. The plea of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that his

signatures were obtained by the management on certain blank papers for

which he has lodged a police complaint dated 03.10.1997. This plea did

not find favour with the Court below for the reason that the petitioner had

admitted his signatures not only on the letter of resignation but also on

the Settlement Deed and also at the back of the cheque received by him

in full and final settlement. The Court below has also taken note of the

fact that the cheque received by the petitioner in full and final

settlement was got encashed from the bank by none else but by the

petitioner himself. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that

the signatures of the petitioner were obtained on blank papers, as

alleged by him. It seems that the petitioner had left the service of the

respondent voluntarily after settling his account in full and final and for

that reason, no fault can be found in the impugned award that may call

for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary

discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed. Application for stay pending on

record is rendered infructuous.

AUGUST 26, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'