Delhi High Court
Roop Narain vs Secretary(Labour) And Ors on 2 December, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 2nd December, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 1197/2013
ROOP NARAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Sudeep Dey, Adv.
versus
SECRETARY(LABOUR) AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Sumit Chander, Adv. for R-
1 and R-2.
Mr.S.S.Ray, Ms.Rakhi Ray,
Mr.Rishi Raj Jaiswal, Mr.
Vaibhav Gulia, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby
directing the respondent to implement the award dated 30.04.1997 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.1146/84, in favour of the petitioner, who
has not entered into any settlement with the Management. Further seeks
directions to pay full back wages in terms of the award mentioned above.
2. On the last date of hearing counsel for respondent No.3 specifically
stated that the settlement had been arrived at between the workers and the
Establishment and same has been recorded in W.P.(C) No. 4490/1997
disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2009. It was agreed between the parties
that if the respondent/employer make a payment of Rs.27 Lac to be
distributed amongst the concerned 50 workmen, whose names have been
shown in Annexure-IV, all the disputes shall be declared as resolved.
Neither there has been remaining any claims of the Union to be resolved or
of the workman individual or in general in this regard. Accordingly, the
Union had prepared the details of all the 50 workmen wherein it was
mentioned that as to how much payment shall be payable in cash and how
much through cheque. These details were specified in Annexure-VIII
attached to the settlement. The respondent employer had accepted to pay
Rs.25,57,000/- as a package deal. As regards the balance amount of
Rs.1,43,000/-, the same was payable and to be distributed equally, as per
written request submitted by the Union vide its letter dated 31.08.2009, to
the four workmen who were members of the Committee i.e. Sh.Ram Babu,
Sh. Ram Murti, Sh. Bhawani Deen and Sh. Roop Narayan, who is the
petitioner in the present petition.
3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner had settled all the disputes
with the respondent/employer and nothing is due to the respondent No.3.
However, Respondent No.3 has filed its additional affidavit whereby stated
that the petitioner was one of the members of the committee which
represented the Union in its negotiations with the Management to arrive at
the holistic settlement which ultimately resulted in the settlement dated
01.09.2009. It is further stated that pursuant to the settlement mentioned
above, all workers were accordingly intimated by way of registered A.D.
letter dated 07.11.2009 to come and collect the dues in terms of the
settlement arrived at between the Union and the Management. The
petitioner was also specifically asked to come and collect the amount
accordingly. However, he did not come and collected the amount.
However, the petitioner declined to receive the same as was informed by his
co-worker and the Committee members.
4. In view of the facts recorded above, the respondent/employer ought to
have sent the money by way of cheque or pay order to the petitioner at his
given address which the respondent failed to do so, thus the amount
remained with respondent No.3. Since, the petitioner has not received the
amount and compelled to file the present petition, therefore, in the interest of
justice and keeping in view the award dated 30.04.1997 and the settlement
dated 01.09.2009, I direct respondent No.3 to pay the amount due as per the
settlement to the petitioner within three weeks from today with interest @
9% per annum from 01.09.2009, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled
for interest @ 12% per annum on delayed payment.
5. I hereby made it clear that the directions passed in this petition will
not be considered as the precedent for the co-workers.
6. In view of the above, the petition allowed with no order as to costs.
7. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 02, 2014
mr/jg
