Delhi High Court
Deen Dayal & Ors vs Mgt. Of Deepak Memorial Hospital & ... on 13 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 13, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7809/2013
+ W.P.(C) 869/2014
DEEN DAYAL & ORS
BIRMA DEVI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Krishna Chandra Dubey,
Advocate
versus
MGT. OF DEEPAK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & MEDICAL
RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Harvinder Singh and Mr.
Sandeep Sharma, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the above-captioned first petition, claim applications of
petitioners-Deen Dayal and four others under Section 33-C (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act')
stand dismissed by the concerned Labour Court vide different orders of
even date i.e. 22nd July, 2013 while holding that petitioners-workmen
have received their salary in terms of Clause 3 of the Agreement of 16 th
September, 2006. In the above-captioned second petition, petitioners-
Birma Devi and two others had filed similar claim applications under
Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act, which stand dismissed by the concerned
Labour Court vide different orders of even date i.e. 4th September, 2013
while holding that petitioners' claim applications are not maintainable as
petitioners-workmen have received their salary in terms of Clause 3 of
the Agreement of 16th September, 2006.
2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions
have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
order.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners dispute the wage-sheet, which has
been relied upon by the trial court, and submits that without giving
opportunity of hearing, the said wage-sheet has been relied upon, which
is also disputed by petitioners. It is also submitted on behalf of petitioners
that ad-hoc payments under different head have not been paid w.e.f. 1st
September, 2006. Whereas, the stand of respondent is that ad-hoc
payments have been made once.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders and the material
on record, I find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, ad-hoc
payment was to be made under different heads w.e.f. 1st September, 2006
as per the aforesaid Agreement. So, it cannot be said that it has to be paid
only once. In any case, the facts of the instant case are such which require
that the evidence ought to be led by the management and petitioners-
workmen also regarding the compliance of Clause 3 of the aforesaid
Settlement Agreement.
5. In light of aforesaid, impugned order is set aside with direction to
the concerned Labour Court to reconsider petitioners' application under
Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act while giving an opportunity to the parties
to lead their evidence. Such a course is adopted because validity of the
Settlement Agreement of 1st September, 2006 is not disputed by
petitioners.
6. The above-captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2018
s
