M/S Sun Pharmaceutical ... vs Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/O Sh. Chetan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4156 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4156 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 27 May, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

M/S Sun Pharmaceutical ... vs Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/O Sh. Chetan ... on 27 May, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7992/2022

M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/o Sh. Chetan Asnani
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Achintya Kaushik.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Asnani, present in person.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

27/05/2022

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the

first round of litigation the matter was settled between the parties

before the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Special Appeal

(Writ) No.1067/2017 wherein on 12.07.2018, the following order

was passed:-

"After arguing the appeals at length, the parties got persuaded for settlement as earlier it was sent for it to Senior Advocate Shri GK Garg. At that time, it was agreed by the parties to settle the dispute by receiving a lump sum amount. A dispute, however, exists on the amount. Whether it is Rs.5 lac or Rs.10 lac?

The learned counsel for non-appellants submits that agreed amount was only of Rs.5 lac. On verification from Senior Advocate Shri GK Garg, it was given to be Rs.10 lac. It was agreed by the parties to maintain the award of the Labour Court but reinstatement would be from the date of order passed by this court. Accordingly and as agreed, the non-appellants would reinstate the appellant within a period of one week from today. The salary would be

(2 of 4) [CW-7992/2022]

fixed as per the direction of the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court is thus maintained with the modification above and, accordingly, the amount of Rs.10 lac would be paid to the appellant within a period of ten days from today and reinstatement within the period given above. The award further makes reference of the continuity of service which order is also maintained.

With the aforesaid substitution in the award, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The parties would now be governed by the substituted award on agreed terms so as to end the litigation otherwise this court was of the opinion that inquiry conducted by the employer was not fair as no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the workman. It would have resulted in remand of the case which has already taken life of 22 years. Hence, instead of further litigation, the parties have agreed to settle it at this stage and accordingly, the order aforesaid has been passed.

The appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid. It would be expected from the non-appellants to act without bias against the appellant, rather, it would be taken in rightful spirit thus on reinstatement, he would be accommodated at the place suitable to both the parties.

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file."

Learned senior counsel further submits that being

dissatisfied of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court

the respondent-workman filed D.B. Contempt Petition

No.2001/2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2021

with liberty to the respondent-workman to take appropriate

remedy as per law in case he feels that some benefits due towards

him, had not been granted, thereafter, the respondent-workman

filed application for clarification of the order dated 18.03.2021

(supra), which was decided by the Division Bench of this court

with the following order on 22.09.2021:-

                        (3 of 4)                                [CW-7992/2022]



           "Learned         counsel        for      the

petitioner/applicant on instructions of the petitioner/applicant who is present in person has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application. Ordered accordingly.

However, it is clarified that any observations made in the order dated 18.03.2021 will not effect the merits of the appropriate remedy as per law, availed by the petitioner/applicant, in case he feels that some benefits due towards him, had not been granted."

Learned senior counsel further submits that admittedly, the

respondent-workman has filed an application under Section 33 C

(2) before the learned Labour Court, No.1, Jaipur for computation

of his due benefits against the company and the said application

is still pending before the learned Labour Court. Learned senior

counsel further submits that the petitioner has also filed an

application under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act upon

which the learned Additional Labour Commissioner vide order

dated 16.05.2022 has granted sanction for prosecution.

The respondent-workman present in person, has opposed

the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner and submitted that full compliance has not been made