M/S. Care Technologies India Pvt. ... vs Industrial Tribunal Ii
2021 Latest Caselaw 1552 Tel

Item No.15



      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                      AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                     WRIT APPEAL No.167 of 2019

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     The appellant/management is aggrieved by the order dated

26.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the award

dated 10.09.2003 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.89 of 2002.

2.     Mr. A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant/management submits that while passing the impugned order

and upholding the award, the learned Single Judge has erroneously

overlooked the fact that after filing a petition under Section 2-A(2) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court,

challenging       the      termination        order       passed        by       the

appellant/management, the respondent No.2/employee had stopped

appearing in the said proceedings to the point that she did not even

file her affidavit by way of evidence. In support of the said

submission, learned counsel for the appellant/management draws the

attention of this court to the first page of the award impugned in the

writ proceedings wherein, it has been recorded as follows:-

"After filing the petition, the petitioner did not show interest

after giving considerable time to the petitioner, as she was not

attending and her counsel was also not attending, it was decided

to dispose the matter from the available material and on the

evidence of the respondent."

The impugned award has also recorded in para VI that though number

of adjournments were given, there was no representation on behalf of

the respondent No.2 and nor did she file her affidavit in support of her

claim. Learned counsel for the appellant/management states that this

itself was sufficient ground to set aside the impugned award.

3. At this stage, keeping in mind the long drawn litigation between

the parties that had commenced over two decades ago and is still

lingering, we have enquired from learned counsel for the parties if

they are willing to arrive at a negotiated settlement on the appellant

paying a lumpsum amount to the respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/employee and learned

counsel for the appellant/management have exchanged some figures

and finally it has been agreed that if the appellant/management pays a

lumpsum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the

respondent No.2/employee, she will not claim reinstatement or 50%

of the backwages in terms of the award. It is agreed that the

appellant/management shall deposit the said amount directly into the

bank account of the respondent No.2/employee through RTGS. The

details of her bank account shall be furnished by learned counsel for

the respondent No.2/employee to learned counsel for the

appellant/management within two days.

5. Both the parties shall file their affidavits in support of the

aforesaid terms and conditions of settlement within one week from

today while exchanging copies with each other. The agreed amount

shall be deposited by the appellant/management into the bank account

of the respondent No.2/employee within two weeks from the date a

copy of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/employee is served

on the appellant/management.

6. The present appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

settlement, along with the pending applications, if any. Only in the

event of non-compliance, can either party approach the court for

appropriate orders.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

04.06.2021 JSU/PLN