Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Lal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113722
CWP-21751-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
129 CWP-21751-2024
Date of decision: 02.09.2024
SHAM LAL ....PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Davinder Lubana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Compromise dated 18.05.2019
(Annexure P-15) executed between petitioner and respondents before the
Medication and Conciliation Centre, Ludhiana. He is further seeking direction to
reinstate him with full back wages.
2. The petitioner for 18 years worked with M/s Gupta Spinning and
Weaving Mills, Ludhiana. He was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 2500/- per
month. The said firm was a partnership firm and it terminated services of petitioner
on 11.10.2004.
3. The petitioner approached Labour Court, Ludhiana which vide Award
dated 24.05.2006 (Annexure P-1) directed the Management to reinstate him with
continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand. The
Management did not implement the aforesaid Award. Thus, petitioner filed
execution application.
4. The matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre,
Ludhiana. The petitioner before Mediator accepted 6 cheques from judgment
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113722
debtor towards outstanding liability of M/s Gupta Spinning and Weaving Mills. The
extracts of compromise deed executed dated 18.05.2019 are reproduced as below:-
"This agreement of settlement has been executed on 18th day of
May, 2019 between Sham Lal and M/s. Gupta Spinning and Weaving
Mills through its authorized signatory Sh. Puneet Goyal. Whereas
some issues has been arose between the parties.
The dispute has been sent for mediation by the referred Court
and undersigned the mediator to whom it has been referred this
dispute, facilitated the parties to reach out and amicable settlement
after having joint and single succession. As per free consents of
parties to dispute the following terms and conditions have been agreed
by both the parties and same has been reduced to writing as under:-
1. That Sham lal has received full and final amount
through various cheques (6 cheques) which was outstanding
Against M/S. Gupta spinning and weaving mills, from sh.
Puneet goyal, authorised signatory of M/s. Gupta spinning and
weaving mills. Now nothing is due against M/s. Gupta spinning
and weaving mills. Sham lal will withdraw the present
execution against M/s. Gupta spinning and weaving mills from
the hon'ble court and will not file any suit against M/s. Gupta
spinning and weaving mills in future in any court of india.
The contents of this agreement have been explained to both the
parties and after understanding the terms & conditions of this
agreement parties signed on it."
5. The petitioner made a statement before the Executing Court that he
has settled his claim with one partner of the firm whereas his claim against other
partners is still pending. The Executing Court vide order dated 15.10.2022
(Annexure P-24) dismissed execution application and allowed different
applications filed by judgment debtors. It would be apt to mention here that on the
application of petitioner, the Executing Court at one stage had issued conditional
warrants against partners of aforesaid firm and they filed application before
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113722
Executing Court seeking recalling of conditional warrants. The Executing Court
has allowed application of partners of aforesaid firm seeking recalling of
conditional warrants and dismissed execution application of petitioner.
6. Mr. Davinder Lubana, Advocate submits that settlement was arrived at
a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- whereas petitioner received Rs. 1,50,000/- through 6
cheques as mentioned in the compromise executed between the parties. In the
compromise-deed, the amount of cheques was not mentioned. The petitioner has
not made full and final settlement with all the partners. The settlement was with
one of the partners of the firm and remaining amount was to be recovered from
other partners of the firm. The Executing Court has wrongly dismissed execution
application of the petitioner and recalled conditional warrants.
7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance
perused the record.
8. From the perusal of record, it is evident that compromise was arrived
at between the parties. The said compromise was not executed in the office of
petitioner or respondents whereas it was executed before a Mediator appointed by
Court. In the compromise-deed it was specifically mentioned that liability against
M/s Gupta Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ludhiana stands settled and execution
application will be withdrawn by decree holder. M/s Gupta Spinning and Weaving
Mills was a partnership firm. The liability of partners was joint as well as several.
The petitioner in the compromise-deed conceded that nothing is due against M/s
Gupta Spinning and Weaving Mills and execution will be withdrawn against M/s
Gupta Spinning and Weaving Mills. Once the matter is settled with M/s Gupta
Spinning and Weaving Mills i.e. judgment debtor, there was no question of
recovery or execution against partners. The Award dated 24.05.2006 was passed
against M/s Gupta Spinning and Weaving Mills i.e. partnership firm. The execution
was filed against M/s Gupta Spinning and Weaving Mills. As soon as matter was
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113722
settled with M/s Gupta Spinning and Weaving Mills, there was no question to
continue the proceedings. The liability of partners exists only if it is not discharged
by firm itself. Once liability is settled by firm, there is no question of liability of
individual partners.
9. There is another aspect of the matter. The compromise was executed
in 2019 and impugned order was passed in October' 2022 and present petition has
been filed in 2024. The petitioner remained silent for 2 years' even from the date of
dismissal of execution application.
10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed.
02.09.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
