Birla White Cement vs Sugna Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 3127 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1342/2019

Birla White Cement, Kharia Khangar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District

Jodhpur Through Its Manager (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus Sugna Ram S/o Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o

Village Post Khangta, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur,

Rajasthan Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ram Narayan

Choudhary S/o Shri Pusa Ram Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village

Khangta, Panchayat Samiti Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur,

Rajasthan.

                                                                     ----Respondent



For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate with

                                 Mr. Harshit Bhurani
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Jitendra Chopra

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

02/03/2022

This appeal is filed by the Birla White Cement (hereinafter

referred to as the 'employer') to challenge the judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 18.09.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 11488/2019 filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to

as the 'employee').

Brief facts of the case are that the employee was engaged by

the appellant-employer for a period of 14 months during June,

1987 to 14th August, 1988 as a labourer. According to the

(2 of 5) [SAW-1342/2019]

appellant, he was engaged through a contract labourer, which of

course the employee denies. Be that as it may, upon his dis-

engagement in the year 1988, he raised an industrial dispute and

sought reference thereof to the Labour Court by approaching the

appropriate Government in or around 01.06.2006. In such a

reference, the Labour Court passed an order on 02.06.2008

recording that the employee was not interested in pursuing the

dispute any longer and that there has been a settlement between

the parties. The Labour Court accordingly directed drawing of no

dispute award, which was published in the gazette on 12.03.2009.

Before the Labour Court, the employee had filed an application on

02.06.2008, in which it was stated that he was not desirous of

proceeding further with the dispute and wished to withdraw the

same since the disputes have been resolved.

Many years later, he filed an application before the Labour

Court on 09.07.2017 and stated that he had lost the vision in both

the eyes and that the employer had duped him by obtaining his

thumb impression on the application for withdrawal of the dispute.

The contents thereof were not truthfully communicated to him.

This application came to be dismissed by the Labour Court by an

order dated 18.05.2018. The Labour Court did not find sufficient

reason to ignore the long delay of nearly 9 years. This order, the

employee challenged in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge

allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the

Labour Court. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that

the advocate of the workman was changed on the last minute and

the Labour Court had not verified itself about the settlement of the

case. Eventually, the learned Judge restored the dispute and

requested the Labour Court to decide the same expeditiously.

(3 of 5) [SAW-1342/2019]

This judgment of the learned Single Judge, the employer has

challenged in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that previously

attempts were made for settling the disputes amicably. The

employer had made an offer of lump sum compensation of Rs. 3.5

lacs to Rs. 5 lacs to the workman as a full and final settlement,

which the workman had not accepted. Learned counsel thereupon

made submissions on merits.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman

submitted that thumb impression of the workman was obtained

through deceit. There was no compromise between the parties.

The workman therefore had no reason to withdraw the industrial

dispute. The offer made by the employer was not fair. He stated

that the workman had lost his eye sights in an accident which took

place during the course of employment.

Having perused the materials on record, we notice that the

workman had approached the appropriate authority under the

Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries received in an accident

which took place during the course of employment and for which

at the relevant time compensation was also awarded and paid.

With respect to the claim of the workman regarding illegal

termination, we may recall that the industrial dispute was sought

to be raised nearly 18 years after the alleged termination. Soon

after the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to

the Labour Court, the same came to be withdrawn on the ground

that the disputes have been compromised. The workman does not

dispute that a statement was given on his behalf before the

Labour Court on the given date. He only states that his thumb

impression was obtained on the documents by misleading him on

(4 of 5) [SAW-1342/2019]

the contents thereof. Even if it is so, there is nothing to explain

why the workman did not seek recall of the withdrawal of the

dispute for nearly 9 years. The learned Single Judge of course had

attempted to examine the question minutely. In the process, the

learned Judge had acted as the Court of original jurisdiction. The

observations on facts made by the learned Single Judge are not in

connection with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court. The

Labour Court, we may recall, had dismissed the application of the

workman for recall of the withdrawal order only on the ground of

delay.

In the facts of the present case, we would have to take a

pragmatic view and mould the reliefs. The appellant-employer has

shown willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs by

way of full and final settlement, in relation to the termination

which took place in the year 1988, so far even the initial steps

have not been taken before the Labour Court. The parties have

got embroiled in different controversies. Reference was sought

nearly 18 years after the event. The restoration of the dispute was

sought 9 years after the dispute was disposed of. We see very

bleak chances of the workman in any way succeeding before the

Labour Court. Under the circumstances we hold the employer to

its original offer which though of course was made by way of

settlement. Let the appellant pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the

respondent within a period of one week from today. Subject to

such payment, the impugned judgment of the learned Single

Judge is reversed.

It is clarified that we have passed this order not by way of

compromise, which the workman was not prepared to accept, but

by way of our judgment.

(5 of 5) [SAW-1342/2019]

The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                        (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
                                   37-jayesh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)