Delhi High Court
M/S Kay International vs Raghubir Singh on 3 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 03, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1730/2015 & CM 19380/2017
M/S KAY INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amita Gupta and Ms. Neha
Tyagi, Advocates
versus
RAGHUBIR SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.D.Wadhwa, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 8680/2015 & C.M. 7784/2016
RAGHUBIR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.D.Wadhwa, Advocate
versus
M/S KAY INTERNATIONAL .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Amita Gupta and Ms. Neha
Tyagi, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned two petitions are directed against Award of
13th November, 2014 which directs the Employer-M/s Kay International
(hereinafter referred to as Employer) to pay the balance amount of
`1,44,677/- with interest @ 7% per annum to the Workman- Raghubir
Singh (hereinafter referred to as "workman"). The finding returned in
the impugned award is that the Workman had not voluntary resigned and
so, he is entitled to reinstatement.
2. In the above captioned first petition, the Employer challenges the
impugned Award on the ground that the settled amount of `1,54,677/-
stands paid to the Workman and so, the Employer is not liable to pay any
amount to the Workman. In the above captioned second petition, the
challenge to the impugned Award is to the extent that the finding returned
in the impugned Award regarding Workman having resigned is
erroneous. It is the case of Workman that he was compelled to resign and
in the first round of litigation, the trial court had directed his
reinstatement and so, he ought to be reinstated with the full back wages.
3. Since the above captioned two petitions arise out of common
impugned Award, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this
common order.
4. Learned counsel for the Employer has drawn attention of this Court
to Receipt Ex. (WW1/M1) and the evidence of the Workman to show that
he has admitted his signature on the Receipt. It is pointed out that the
Workman in his evidence has categorically stated that his witness Om
Prakash (WW-2) had also signed the Receipt Ex. (WW1/M1) and so, it is
submitted that the Employer has no liability to pay the awarded amount.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Workman submits
that the Receipt regarding token of receiving the settled amount, was
filled in by one Tiwari, as the Workman does not know how to read and
write and the alleged settlement was arrived at in the factory of Om
Prakash (WW-2) in Pitampura. It is submitted that Om Prakash (WW-2)
is friend of the Employer and it was assured that the cash amount of
₹1,44,677 would be paid on the next date but the said cash was not
brought on the day of the settlement. It is further submitted that the
resignation by the Workman was under coercion and so, the Workman
deserves to be reinstated with full back wages.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that the resignation letter and the Receipt in lieu of the
settlement between the parties was executed at the factory premises of
Om Prakash (WW-2). On perusal of evidence of Om Prakash (WW-2)
and the other evidence on record, I find that the plea of Workman
obtaining resignation letter under coercion cannot be accepted. It cannot
be said that Om Prakash (WW-2) is under the influence of the Employer
and his witness got examined by the Workman. Otherwise also, there is
no basis to reach such a conclusion. The Workman in his evidence has
admitted that he had received amount of ₹10,000/- by way of a cheque as
part settlement and regarding remaining settlement amount of ₹1,54,677/-
, he is unable to recollect as to when it was given. But the Workman has
not denied his signatures on the Receipt executed in token of receiving
the said amount of ₹1,54,677/- odd. Not only this, the Workman in his
evidence has deposed that may be Om Prakash (WW-2) has signed the
Receipt executed in token of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
It is a matter of record that the Receipt Ex. (WW1/M1) bears the
signatures of the Workman as well as of the witness- Om Prakash (WW-
2).
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has rightly
concluded in the impugned Award that the Workman had resigned in
view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. However, there is
no basis for the trial court to conclude that the entire settled amount of
₹1,54,677/- was not received by the Workman. In the face of the evidence
of Workman and Om Prakash (WW-2), the impugned Award, so far it
directs payment of ₹1,44,677/- with interest cannot be sustained and is
accordingly set aside. The impugned Award stands accordingly modified
in the aforesaid terms.
8. Consequentially, the writ petition filed by the Workman is
dismissed and the writ petition filed by the Employer is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
9. These petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2018
v
