Jagdish Singh vs Neeraj Gupta & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4270 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 2nd September, 2011

+                                 W.P.(C) 7680/2008

        JAGDISH SINGH                                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through:            Mr. B.P. Chaubey, Adv. for Mr. S.
                                         Sahai, Adv.

                                     Versus
        NEERAJ GUPTA & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                    Through:             Ms. Kanika Sharma & Mr. Rajpal
                                         Singh, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may              Not necessary
        be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
        in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner workman had raised an industrial dispute against the

respondent No.1 employer about the illegal termination of his employment.

The said industrial dispute was adjudicated vide award dated 02.05.06. The

respondent No.1 employer was held to have terminated the employment of

the petitioner workman illegally and was directed to reinstate the petitioner

workman with full back wages and continuity of service.

2. This writ petition has been filed pleading that the respondent No.2 Mr.

Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary of Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.)

was representing the petitioner in the proceedings aforesaid before the

Industrial Adjudicator and in collusion with one Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey,

Secretary Shram Jivi Vikas Union settled the dispute with the respondent

No.1 employer and appropriated the entire settlement amount to himself and

paid a sum of `15,000/- only to the petitioner. The petitioner has in the

present petition sought direction for implementation of the award and for

action to be taken against the respondent No.2.

3. Notice of the petition was issued. The respondent No.1 employer in

his counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner had settled the dispute with

the respondent No.1 employer and had also furnished his affidavit in support

of the said settlement. As per the documents of settlement produced by the

respondent No.1 employer, the petitioner received a sum of `1,89,000/- from

the respondent No.1 employer in full and final settlement of his claims

against the respondent No.1. The said documents besides purporting to bear

the signatures and thumb impression of the petitioner also bear the signature

of Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey as a witness.

4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit

aforesaid and in which he has not denied his signatures on the documents

produced by the respondent No.1 employer but has stated that the said

signatures were obtained by the respondent No.2 from the petitioner by

practicing deceit.

5. The respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit has denied having

represented the petitioner and has placed the blame if any on Sh. Awdesh

Kumar Pandey.

6. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioner has filed CM

No.3692/2011 for impleading Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey as respondent to

the present petition. For the last few dates, the matter is being adjourned for

service of the said Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey. Notice sent to Sh. Awdesh

Kumar Pandey at the address furnished by the respondent No.2 has been

received back unserved with the endorsement that he has left the Union.

7. The arguing counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to appear. The

counsel who appears has no idea about the case.

8. In the circumstances aforesaid, it is felt that no directions as sought to

the respondent No.1 employer to implement the award can be issued. In the

state of pleadings aforesaid, it does appear that the petitioner admits that as

far as the respondent No.1 employer is concerned, a settlement was arrived

at. If at all the petitioner claims to be entitled to still implement that award

against respondent No.1 employer, the respondent No.1 employer is to be

given a chance to prove that in view of settlement, the award stands

satisfied. The same will entail disputed questions of fact which cannot be

adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The remedy if any of the petitioner against

the respondent No.1 employer is under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Insofar as the claims of the petitioner against the

respondent No.2 Kapil Dev Pandey and the proposed respondent No.4 Sh.

Avdesh Kumar Pandey are concerned, in any case, the same are not

entertainable and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and the petitioner

is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings against them for the loss if any

caused by them to the petitioner.

The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 02, 2011 'gsr'