M/S Nirmal Industries vs Dhanju Ram & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2188 Del

                  *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                             W.P.(C) 4992/2002
%                                                 Date of decision: 26th April, 2010
M/S NIRMAL INDUSTRIES                                          ..... PETITIONER
                  Through:                  Mr. Arun Mehta, Advocate along
                                            with Mr. Harish Bajaj, Mr. Bhagwan
                                            Das Batra & Mr. Jatin Batra LRs &
                                            the petitioner present in person.
                                       Versus
DHANJU RAM & ANR.                                       ..... RESPONDENTS
                              Through:      Mr. K.C. Dubey, Advocate for
                                            Respondents
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers 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           No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Pursuant to the earlier order dated 20th April, 2010, the parties have arrived at a settlement.

2. This petition has been preferred with respect to the award dated 12th March, 2001 of the Industrial Tribunal holding the termination by the petitioner of the services of the respondents workmen to be illegal and unjustified but granting the relief only of payments by the petitioner of compensation of Rs.60,000/- in lump sum to the respondent Shri Dhanju Ram and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum to the respondent Shri Ram Jattan. This Court vide interim order had stayed the operation of the award. The counsel for the respondent workmen states that the respondent workmen have not challenged the said award.

3. On the last date, the petitioner and the respondent workmen were directed to appear in person today. Though the legal representatives of the petitioners are stated to be present but the counsel for the respondent workmen states that the respondent workmen have not come but he has instructions

from them to negotiate and to enter into the settlement.

4. It has been agreed that the petitioner shall, within 10 days of today, in full & final settlement of all claims of the respondent workmen against the petitioner, pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- (instead of Rs.60,000/-) to the respondent Sh. Dhanju Ram and a sum of Rs.45,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-) to the respondent Sh. Ram Jattan. The counsel for the respondent workmen states that upon payment of the said amounts the respondent workmen shall be left with no claim whatsoever against the petitioner/legal representatives of the petitioner under the award impugned in this petition or otherwise. He further confirms that the respondent workmen have not filed/initiated any other proceedings/complaint against the petitioner or its erstwhile partners or their legal representatives. It has been further agreed that the aforesaid amounts shall be paid by Pay Order in the name of the respondent workmen and be delivered to the counsel for the respondent workmen within 10 days of today as aforesaid.

5. Mr. Bhagwan Das Batra, Mr. Harish Bajaj & Mr. Jatin Batra legal representatives of the petitioner are present in person and undertake to this Court to make the payments as aforesaid. They have been explained the consequences of breach of undertaking given to this Court.

6. The aforesaid settlement is found to be just and in the interest of the parties and is allowed. The undertaking of the legal representatives of the petitioner is accepted and they are ordered to be bound by the same. The award impugned in the writ petition is modified in terms of the settlement aforesaid and the writ petition is disposed of in terms thereof.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 26th April, 2010 pp