Surender Singh Dalal vs M/S Mother Dairy
2014 Latest Caselaw 3664 Del

$~2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                      Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014

       +       W.P.(C) 2855/2014

SURENDER SINGH DALAL                    ..... Petitioner
                 Represented by: Mr. Rakesh Mudgal and
                 Mr. Dinesh Mudgal, Advs.

                        versus


M/S MOTHER DAIRY                                         ..... Respondent
                                 Represented by: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 11.07.2011, whereby the termination of the petitioner has been held valid and legal.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the under Section 47 of persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, protection or rights and full participation) Act, 1995, it is mandatory that whenever a workman suffered from disability, he should be provided with work, which he is competent to do. Since the Management has not granted his legal right, its settlement with the Petitioner is bad in law. Consequently, the termination order dated 15.06.1995 has no bearing.

3. It is admitted fact that the Demand Notice was sent by the petitioner on 16.10.2002, whereas his services were terminated on 15.06.1995.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver / Salesman on 13.12.1985. He received injuries on 25.04.1994 with 60% disability. Due to the said injury, one leg of the petitioner was amputated.

5. The Labour Court (XVI), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi passed a detail judgment. For the sake of brevity, I am not repeating the same.

6. The case of the Management before the Labour Court was that, after resignation by the workman, the Union requested the Management that instead of accepting his resignation, it is better to terminate his services, since in that case, he will get more terminal benefits than in the case of resignation.

7. Accordingly, Management issued termination letter dated 15.06.1995 and on the same date, an Agreement Ex.MW-2/1 was executed. By this Agreement payments were offered on account of disability, Mother Dairy Employees' Benevolent Fund, PF and in addition to above payments, Rs.97,773.37/- were paid representing retrenchment benefits, bonus and wages.

8. By Clause 6 of the Agreement Ex.MW2/1, it was undertaken that the petitioner / workman and his Union will not prefer any claim in future towards any compensation, statutory benefits or for any reasons.

9. Accordingly, the termination letter dated 15.06.1995 was pursuant to Agreement executed between the Management and the petitioner / workman, which was duly singed by the petitioner /workman, his wife, namely Sushila Devi, witnessed by General Secretary, Mother Dairy Employees' Union, Mr. Narender Singh and Mr. R.K. Sanghal, also duly signed by Mr. B.S.

Mathur, Deputy General Secretary (AMC) and also witnessed by Mr. Siddharth Ray and Mr. Subhash Chander Mehto.

10. As a part of this Agreement, the petitioner / workman made correspondence vide letter dated 15.06.1995 requesting for full and final settlement. Therefore, vide the aforesaid communication, he requested to pay full and final settlement from Mother Dairy Employees' Benevolent Trust.

11. The petitioner / workman also sent a letter dated 15.06.1995 for full and final settlement of PF duly singed by him. He also sent a letter dated 15.06.1995 requesting for Gratuity duly signed by him.

12. In view of above noted facts, Ld. Labour Court opined that the cessation of relationship between the parties in view of Agreement Ex.MW- 2/1 was voluntary and the present case was not a case of illegal termination.

13. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner received injuries on 15.04.1994 with 60% disability. His services were terminated on 15.06.1995, however, the Demand Notice was served upon the Management on 16.10.2002.

14. On the issue of delay, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner / workman submits that petitioner was not aware of his rights. Therefore, he sent Demand Notice on 16.10.2002.

15. It is a settled law that the ignorance of law has no excuse and the benefit cannot be given to such a person.

16. Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in the instant petition even to issue of notice.

17. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed in limine.

SURESH KAIT, J AUGUST 12, 2014 jg