Marcos Overseas Pvt Ltd v. Parsu Ram

1. Though this appeal is prefened against in the interim order passed by the leamed Single Judge, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, W.P.(C) 7421/2009 is also taken on Board.

2. It is pointed out by the leamecl counsel for thc appellant that fi'om the very beginning the respondent workrnan had given up his clairn for reinstatement and had demanded only retrenchrnent compensation, notice pay, gratuity, bonus, leave pay etc. His argurnent, on this basis was that the reference pertaining to the legality or otherwise pf the terrnination is itself bad in law. He has referred to the pleadings filed by the respondent {' 2012:DHC:10488-DB - --t t I,r, \ir" workman even before the Labour coutt whet'eiu the workman had not pressed the clairn for reinstatement. Predicated on this, his subrnission is that irnpugned order granting reinstatement with barok wages was ex facie illegal and the learned Single Judge while vacating the stay order did not look into this asPect.

3. Be as. it may, the counsel for both the parties, have agreed to settle the matter amicably on the following terms:- (D The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs'1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the respondeqt wolkrnan in full and final settlement of all his dues and on payment of tliis. amount, the Award shall be treated as satisfied' (iD The respondent workman shall have no claim for reinstatement either L.

(iii) In this Court the respondent workman h"P$?f;""a surn of Rs'

96,000/- by the Management. Balance amorurt of Rs.54,000/shall be paid within four weeks ftom today' w.P.(C)7 42112009 and LPA I0l20I[2] stand disposed of in the aforesaid ter.m. A11 pending application also disposed of.

ACTING CUTBN JUSTICE MAY 08,20L[2] skb RAJIV SAHAI ENDI,AW' J {