Tara Cable Industries vs Lal Chand And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2721 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of decision: 20th May, 2011

+                         WP(C) NO.6986/2010


TARA CABLE INDUSTRIES                                      ..... Petitioner
                 Through:               Mr. Dhruv Mohan, Advocate


                                    Versus


LAL CHAND AND ORS                                         ..... Respondents
                Through:                Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-2.


CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may                    No
       be allowed to see the judgment?

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. The petition impugns the Award dated 23rd July, 2010 of the Industrial

Adjudicator on the following reference:

"Whether Sh. Lal Chand, S/o Sh. Ram Preet, C/o Engineering Udyog & General Kamgar Union, H-4/1812, Jahangirpuri, Delhi has abandoned his services on receipt of full and final dues voluntarily from the management or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Government Notification and to what other relief is he/are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

and though holding the termination of the respondent workman to be

illegal but granting the relief to the respondent workman of lumsum

compensation of Rs.50,000/- only.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. Though the respondent no.1

workman was reported to have been served on 21 st January, 2011 but none

appeared on his behalf on 21 st January, 2011 and the matter was posted for

today. Today also none has appeared for the respondent no.1 workman. The

counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

3. It was the case of the respondent no.1 workman before the Industrial

Adjudicator that he was employed with the petitioner for eight years with the

last drawn salary of Rs.4000/- per month; that he was however being not

provided with appointment letter, attendance card, pay slip, leave, bonus,

ESI, PF etc. and when he started demanding the same, his services were

terminated w.e.f. 13th June, 2002 without paying earned wages from 1st May,

2002 to 12th June, 2002 and that he was unemployed since the date of

termination.

4. The defence of the petitioner employer, as would be evident from the

reference also, was of the respondent no.1 workman having voluntarily left

the employment of the petitioner after receiving his dues in full and final

settlement. The petitioner employer in this regard relied on a voucher for

Rs.12,260/-.

5. The Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the record and evidence led

by the parties before him held that the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules

1957, in Rule 58(4) required the settlement, if any, between the employer

and the workman arrived at otherwise in the conciliation proceedings to be

in a certain manner and further held that the petitioner employer having not

forwarded a copy of the settlement to the Assistant Labour Commissioner as

required, could not rely on the settlement and held the settlement to be

nonest in the eye of law. Besides the aforesaid, the Industrial Adjudicator

further held that the settlement alleged was signed by the union and no

document had been produced to show that the respondent no.1 workman was

the member of the union or had authorized the signatory of the settlement to

sign on his behalf. It was further held that though the witness of the

petitioner claim the presence of one Mr. Phool Singh at the time of

settlement but there was no explanation as to why the settlement was not

signed by the said Phool Singh also. It was yet further held that the alleged

settlement did not disclose as to how the sum of Rs.12,260/-had been arrived

at. It was held that the registration certificate of the union and the certified

list of the office bearers and the members of the union had not been proved.

The Industrial Adjudicator thus disbelieved the plea of the petitioner of

settlement.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to Wings Wear (P) Ltd. v.

Workman ILR 1996 Delhi 597. I fail to appreciate as to how the said

judgment comes to the rescue of the petitioner. Rather the same in para 7

thereof notices a plethora of other judgments laying down that settlement has

to be in compliance with the statutory provision and is invalid if the

provisions of Rule 58(4) of the aforesaid Rules are not complied with. The

observations in para 9 of the judgment, of the management in that case being

nevertheless bound by the settlement are in the context of the management

having not disputed the settlement and having acted upon it and thus being

estopped from challenging the same. The counsel for the petitioner has also

referred to State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy AIR 1953 SC 53 but the said

judgment is also not found apposite to the facts of the case.

7. I have also perused the record of the Industrial Adjudicator

requisitioned in this Court. The findings returned by the Industrial

Adjudicator as to the existence of the alleged settlement are findings of fact

and are found to be based on some evidence. It is the settled proposition in

law that this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review would not re-

appreciate the evidence or exercise the Appellate powers. Reference in this

regard can be made to:

(i) Govt. of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Narsullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373.

(ii) Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch Vs. Maharaj Singh (2003) 9

SCC 191.

(iii) Union of India Vs. M/s Mustafa and Najibai Trading Co.

(1998) 6 SCC 79.

(iv) B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI (1996) I LLJ 1231 SC.

(v) Poorna Singh Kain Vs. UOI MANU/DE/1292/2008.

(vi) Suresh Kumar Vs. the Management of Monsanto

Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/8303/2007.

(vii) Ram Narain Jha Vs. T.M. Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (99)

DRJ 724.

(viii) MCD Vs. Satish Kumar (2005) 81 DRJ 344 (DB)

8. No case of any perversity or unreasonableness in the finding of fact of

the Appellate Tribunal disbelieving the settlement is made out in the present

case. In fact, I find it strange that the self confessed union representative

appeared as a witness on behalf of the management.

There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) May 20, 2011 M