M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs Suman Lata Tuteja & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 785 Del

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 785 Del
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2015

Delhi High Court

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs Suman Lata Tuteja & Ors. on 29 January, 2015

Author: Deepa Sharma

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                        WP(C) 2113/2000
%                                     Date of Decision : January 29, 2015

      M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.               ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr.Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Adv.

                         Versus

      SUMAN LATA TUTEJA & ORS.                ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr.K.Venkatraman, Adv. for R-1

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM No.18661/2014

1. This application is moved by respondent/workman for release of

money lying with the Registry. As per the letter of the Registry of this

Court dated 17.07.2014, the money is lying in fixed deposit. This amount is

calculated by the Registry as Rs.81,785.05.

2. The sole question for consideration before this Court in the present

application is whose money is it which is lying with the Registry.

3. The brief history of the case shows that by way of this writ petition

the petitioner Management has challenged the order of the Industrial

Tribunal by which the Industrial Tribunal had set aside the termination of

respondent No.1 workman and ordered for reinstatement with full back-

wages. During the proceedings before this Court in the said writ an

application CM No.3377/2000 was filed by the petitioner seeking stay of

operation of the said award of the Tribunal. On 30.07.2001, this Court

disposed of the said application. The relevant portion of the said order is as

under:-:-

"..........Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and upon hearing the counsel appearing for the parties. I direct that upon petitioner depositing 25% of the back wages payable to the respondent No.1 within six weeks from today, the operation of the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed till the disposal of the writ petition. It is made clear that the aforesaid amount to be deposited by the petitioner in this Court shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition.

Out of the aforesaid amount as and when deposited by the petitioner, 50% shall be paid to the respondent No.1 as against the security to be furnished by the respondent No.1 to the satisfaction of the Joint Registrar of this Court. The balance 50% of the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit account to earn maximum interest."

4. It is therefore apparent that the order of deposit was without prejudice

to the rights and contentions of the parties in this writ petition. The

petitioner had deposited the said sum. This writ petition was allowed by this

Court vide its order dated 08.09.2011 and the award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal was set aside. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:-

"18. This Court accordingly sets aside the order dated 20 March 1997 and the Award dated 25th November 1999 th

passed by the Labour Court. However, it is directed that Respondent No.1 need not refund to the HIL the amount received by her pursuant to the interim order dated 20 th October 1997 passed by the Labour Court and as further modified by the order dated 14th July 1998 of this Court in WP(C) No.1797 of 1998. Respondent No.1 also need not refund to HIL the amount released to her pursuant to the order dated 30th July 2001 of this Court in the present petition. The balance amount deposited by HIL in this Court will be returned to HIL by the Registry together with the interest accrued thereon within a period of two weeks from today."

5. It is apparent that pursuant to the order dated 30.07.2001 passed by

this Court, although the petitioner Management had deposited the 25% of

the back wages due to the respondent No.1 workman with the Registry.

However, since respondent No.1 did not submit any security towards the

amount, to be released to him, out of the amount so deposited, no money

was released to respondent No.1 pursuant to the said order.

6. The order of this Court was challenged by respondent No.1 workman

before a Division Bench of this High Court. Vide its order dated

01.06.2012, the order of this Court was set aside in totality by the Division

Bench. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

"24. ...... Having regard to the totality of circumstances, namely, the number of years of service which was rendered by the workman before her termination, the intervening period etc., we are of the view that interest of justice would be subserved if we award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the aforesaid extend holding that on the payment of the said compensation, the appellant shall have no right to claim reinstatement or re-employment with the management and the management shall be in full and final satisfaction of all her claims. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-"

7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order dated 01.06.2012 of the

Division Bench, the petitioner management has paid the entire compensation

of Rs.5 lakhs and the cost to the respondent No.1 workman. From order

dated 30.07.2001 it is clear that the deposit of 25% of the back-wages were

subject to the determination of the rights of the parties. This Court vide

order dated 08.09.2011 determined the rights of the parties and came to the

conclusion that the termination of the respondent No.1 workman was legal,

however allowed 50% of 25% of the back-wages so deposited with the

Registry, to be retained by the respondent No.1 workman. This order

however stands set aside vide order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Division

Bench, therefore, there is no order in existence in favour of respondent No.1

showing his entitlement to 50% of the amount deposited by the respondent.