Full Text
Translation output
F\ t ....:
I ti
$-37 & 19-33 oh 23.05.2013
Present:
Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Jitender Dewan. Advocate
Advocates for the respondent
Mr. Harvinder Singh for R-1.
Mr. Sanjeev Sahay for R-3&4
Ms. Rajiv Aneja,for R-5&6
Mr. Satvik Varma for GNCTD
W.P.(C) 140212013 with w.P.(c) 27 00 t20t1, w.p.(c) 27 01 I 201 1, W.p. ( C) 27 02 I 201r, w.P.(c) 2703t20r1, w.p.(c) 2704t2011, w.p. (c) 270st20rL, w.P.(c) 27 06t20r1, w.p.( c) 27 07 t20I 1, W.p .(C) 27 09 t20rr, w.P.(c) 27r0t20r1, \v.p.(c) 27r2t2011, w.p. (c) 27r3/20rr, w.P.(c) 27r4t20n, \ry.p.(c) 271st2011, w.p.(c) 27t6t20rr
On 01 .03.2013 in W.P.(C.) No.1402/2013, which is one of the matters l' in this batch of writ petitions, the following order was passed:
"The petition.ers have prefen'ed tlds .vvrit petition to assail the order passed by respondent No.8, the Conciliation Officer on
08.10.2010 thereby registering the settlement allegedly arrived at bettveen the, Management and tlce petitioners at Serial
No.l37 of the Register of Settlentents. Tlce background of the said settlernent is tlmt the Industrial Tribunal-I passed an atuard on 05.06.2009 in respect of a large nuntlser of worlcnten includi.ng the petitioners holding the terndnation of their services as illegal and unjustified. They were directed to be reinstated in service vvith 75%o of the last dr"atvn salartt as
2013:DHC:7257
'"4
-\
) lt baclnvages, and continuity of their services yvith the concer.necl ntanagetnent. , The workntan are alleged to ltave arrived at the settlernent which was registered by the Conciliation Officer at
Serial No. I 37 by tlrc intpttgned order clatecl 08. I 0. 20 I 0.
The case of th<- petitioners is that the said settlentent tras, in fact, not implernentad. Consequently, the petitioners are seelcing the setting aside of the orc{er dated 08.10.2010.
Tlrc petttioners also seek the enforcentent of the ayvard dated
0s.06.2009.
Prima facie, it appears to rne that the aspect whetlrcr tlrc settlentent lcas been intplentented or not, and the circtunsta.nces vvheretmder the sctnrc was arcived at are pw,ely factual disptftes and cannot be deterntined in writ jr,u"isdiction.
Learnecl counse;l fot' tlrc petitioners seelcs a slrcrt adjotu'nrnent to malce lti,s submissions on this aspect.
At request, adjor,u.ned to 08.0i.2013."
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the afbresaid observations maclq by this Court, fairly states that thesc cases involve disputed questions of fact regarding the settlement tenns and their breach by the respondent lnanagement,.which cannot be deterrnined in the present writ petition and, therefore, seel<s to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to prefer such other remedy as nlay be available to the petitioners.
In view of the afor:esaid, the writ petitions and the pencling applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
VIPIN SANG}II, J
MAY 23,2013
ST
2013:DHC:7257
I ti
$-37 & 19-33 oh 23.05.2013
Present:
Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Jitender Dewan. Advocate
Advocates for the respondent
Mr. Harvinder Singh for R-1.
Mr. Sanjeev Sahay for R-3&4
Ms. Rajiv Aneja,for R-5&6
Mr. Satvik Varma for GNCTD
W.P.(C) 140212013 with w.P.(c) 27 00 t20t1, w.p.(c) 27 01 I 201 1, W.p. ( C) 27 02 I 201r, w.P.(c) 2703t20r1, w.p.(c) 2704t2011, w.p. (c) 270st20rL, w.P.(c) 27 06t20r1, w.p.( c) 27 07 t20I 1, W.p .(C) 27 09 t20rr, w.P.(c) 27r0t20r1, \v.p.(c) 27r2t2011, w.p. (c) 27r3/20rr, w.P.(c) 27r4t20n, \ry.p.(c) 271st2011, w.p.(c) 27t6t20rr
On 01 .03.2013 in W.P.(C.) No.1402/2013, which is one of the matters l' in this batch of writ petitions, the following order was passed:
"The petition.ers have prefen'ed tlds .vvrit petition to assail the order passed by respondent No.8, the Conciliation Officer on
08.10.2010 thereby registering the settlement allegedly arrived at bettveen the, Management and tlce petitioners at Serial
No.l37 of the Register of Settlentents. Tlce background of the said settlernent is tlmt the Industrial Tribunal-I passed an atuard on 05.06.2009 in respect of a large nuntlser of worlcnten includi.ng the petitioners holding the terndnation of their services as illegal and unjustified. They were directed to be reinstated in service vvith 75%o of the last dr"atvn salartt as
2013:DHC:7257
'"4
-\
) lt baclnvages, and continuity of their services yvith the concer.necl ntanagetnent. , The workntan are alleged to ltave arrived at the settlernent which was registered by the Conciliation Officer at
Serial No. I 37 by tlrc intpttgned order clatecl 08. I 0. 20 I 0.
The case of th<- petitioners is that the said settlentent tras, in fact, not implernentad. Consequently, the petitioners are seelcing the setting aside of the orc{er dated 08.10.2010.
Tlrc petttioners also seek the enforcentent of the ayvard dated
0s.06.2009.
Prima facie, it appears to rne that the aspect whetlrcr tlrc settlentent lcas been intplentented or not, and the circtunsta.nces vvheretmder the sctnrc was arcived at are pw,ely factual disptftes and cannot be deterntined in writ jr,u"isdiction.
Learnecl counse;l fot' tlrc petitioners seelcs a slrcrt adjotu'nrnent to malce lti,s submissions on this aspect.
At request, adjor,u.ned to 08.0i.2013."
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the afbresaid observations maclq by this Court, fairly states that thesc cases involve disputed questions of fact regarding the settlement tenns and their breach by the respondent lnanagement,.which cannot be deterrnined in the present writ petition and, therefore, seel<s to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to prefer such other remedy as nlay be available to the petitioners.
In view of the afor:esaid, the writ petitions and the pencling applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
VIPIN SANG}II, J
MAY 23,2013
ST
2013:DHC:7257
JUDGMENT