Delhi High Court
Sylvania & Laxman Employees ... vs Shri Ashok Aggarwal on 3 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve:27th January, 2010
Date of Order:3rd March, 2010
CONT. CAS(C) No. 219/2004
% 03.03.2010
Sylvania & Laxman Karamchari Sangh ... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Munjal, Advocate
Versus
Smt. Shyama Aggarwal & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sumant De, Advocate for the Contemnor
Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate for Labour Commissioner
Mr. Sandeep Anand, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC
Mr. K.C.Dubey, Advocate for IFCL.
CONT. CAS(C) No. 221/2004
Sylvania & Laxman Employees Welfare Union ... Petitioner
Through: Ms. K.C.Dubey, Advocate
Versus
Shri Ashok Aggarwal ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sumant De, Advocate for the Contemnor
Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate for Labour Commissioner
Mr. Sandeep Anand, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC
CONT. CAS(C) No. 409/2004
Sylvania & Laxman Employees Welfare Union ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S.Dalal, Advocate
Versus
Smt. Shyama Aggarwal & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sumant De, Advocate for the Contemnor
Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate for Labour Commissioner
Mr. Sandeep Anand, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for LAC
Mr. K.C.Dubey, Advocate for IFCL.
CCP-219.04/CCP-221.04/CCP-409.04 Page 1 of 4
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
These three contempt petitions have been filed by employees/unions
of Sylvania Laxman Limited alleging violation of orders dated 19th August, 2002 & 9th
September, 2002. The petitions were filed more than 5 years back and this Court
had been giving directions from time to time till date.
2. Vide order dated 19th August, 2002 the Court had recorded the
settlement arrived at between the petitioner Union and management of Sylvania
Laxman Limited and given directions regarding payment of dues, salary, gratuity etc.
to the different workmen. This order was further modified by order dated 9th
September, 2002 and the rights of the workmen were further clarified. The
respondent company had to receive funds from different sources including from Land
Acquisition Collector after acquisition of the land of the company on Najafgarh Road.
The funds, equivalent to the claims of the workers, were placed at the disposal of
Labour Commissioner to be disbursed amongst the workmen after verification of their
claims. The workmen were being represented by several Unions and this Court had
been passing orders from time to time regarding placing funds at the disposal of the
Labour Commissioner and disbursement of these funds to the employees/workers.
The stage has come when the salary and other dues of all the workmen pertaining to
different Unions stand paid or the sufficient funds have been placed with Assistant
Labour Commissioner for disbursement.
3. On last hearing i.e. 27th January, 2010 the management placed
another amount of Rs.48,31,025/- at the hands of Assistant Labour Commissioner in
terms of the initial order of this Court so that this amount coupled with the amount
already lying with Assistant Labour Commissioner be disbursed to the workmen.
Learned Counsel representing different Unions of workmen raised issue of interest to
be received by workmen. The pleas raised by different Counsel are self-
contradictory. While one of the Unions has been claiming that the interest was
payable only to 450 workmen, the other Counsel pleaded that all the workmen were
to be paid interest irrespective of their numbers. It would be fruitful to see what were
the directions given by this Court in its order dated 19th August, 2002 and 9th
September, 2002 regarding interest.
4. The order dated 19th August, 2002 provided that the interest on dues
will be paid @ 12% p.a. as per 1997 settlement and as per modification of the
settlement subsequently entered into between the management and Welfare Union.
The interest shall be payable for period up to 31st August, 1999 only to those
workers who had submitted their affidavits prior to 15th March, 1998. In order dated
9th September, 2002 this Court observed that the workers who had got their benefits
under the settlement, shall not be entitled to get benefits under the modified
settlement. 37 workers who had not been paid salary from April, 1995 till 31st March,
1996, they shall be made payment of salary after withdrawing amount of Rs.47 lac.
5. It is therefore clear that the interest @ 12% p.a. was payable only to
those workers who had submitted their affidavits prior to 15th April, 1998 but had not
been paid their dues before August, 1999 and the interest was not payable to any
other category of workmen. The settlements arrived at between the management
and the workmen were of 1997 and 1999. The order did not mention any specific
number whether this was 450 less or more. The Assistant Labour Commissioner,
who is disbursing the funds, shall make payment of interest to those workmen who
had filed their affidavits prior to 15th April, 1998, in accordance with the order dated
19.8.2002. If there was any shortfall in the amount, the same shall be borne by the
management and placed at the hands of the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
6. With these directions, these petitions are disposed of. Nothing further
survives in these petitions since the amount in terms of the directions of this Court
had already been placed at the hands of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, by the
management for disbursement.
March 03, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
