Tara Cable Industries v. Lal Chand and Ors.

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the Award dated 23rd July, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: 2011:DHC:2851 “Whether Sh. Lal Chand, S/o Sh. Ram Preet, C/o Engineering Udyog & General Kamgar Union, H-4/1812, Jahangirpuri, Delhi has abandoned his services on receipt of full and final dues voluntarily from the management or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Government Notification and to what other relief is he/are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” and though holding the termination of the respondent workman to be illegal but granting the relief to the respondent workman of lumsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- only.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. Though the respondent no.1 workman was reported to have been served on 21st January, 2011 but none appeared on his behalf on 21st January, 2011 and the matter was posted for today. Today also none has appeared for the respondent no.1 workman. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

3. It was the case of the respondent no.1 workman before the Industrial Adjudicator that he was employed with the petitioner for eight years with the last drawn salary of Rs.4000/- per month; that he was however being not provided with appointment letter, attendance card, pay slip, leave, bonus, ESI, PF etc. and when he started demanding the same, his services were terminated w.e.f. 13th June, 2002 without paying earned wages from 1st May, 2002 to 12th June, 2002 and that he was unemployed since the date of termination.

4. The defence of the petitioner employer, as would be evident from the reference also, was of the respondent no.1 workman having voluntarily left the employment of the petitioner after receiving his dues in full and final settlement. The petitioner employer in this regard relied on a voucher for Rs.12,260/-.

5. The Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the record and evidence led by the parties before him held that the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957, in Rule 58(4) required the settlement, if any, between the employer and the workman arrived at otherwise in the conciliation proceedings to be in a certain manner and further held that the petitioner employer having not forwarded a copy of the settlement to the Assistant Labour Commissioner as required, could not rely on the settlement and held the settlement to be nonest in the eye of law. Besides the aforesaid, the Industrial Adjudicator further held that the settlement alleged was signed by the union and no document had been produced to show that the respondent no.1 workman was the member of the union or had authorized the signatory of the settlement to sign on his behalf. It was further held that though the witness of the petitioner claim the presence of one Mr. Phool Singh at the time of settlement but there was no explanation as to why the settlement was not signed by the said Phool Singh also. It was yet further held that the alleged settlement did not disclose as to how the sum of Rs.12,260/-had been arrived at. It was held that the registration certificate of the union and the certified list of the office bearers and the members of the union had not been proved. The Industrial Adjudicator thus disbelieved the plea of the petitioner of settlement.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to Wings Wear (P) Ltd. v. Workman ILR 1996 Delhi 597. I fail to appreciate as to how the said judgment comes to the rescue of the petitioner. Rather the same in para 7 thereof notices a plethora of other judgments laying down that settlement has to be in compliance with the statutory provision and is invalid if the provisions of Rule 58(4) of the aforesaid Rules are not complied with. The observations in para 9 of the judgment, of the management in that case being nevertheless bound by the settlement are in the context of the management having not disputed the settlement and having acted upon it and thus being estopped from challenging the same. The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy AIR 1953 SC 53 but the said judgment is also not found apposite to the facts of the case.

7. I have also perused the record of the Industrial Adjudicator requisitioned in this Court. The findings returned by the Industrial Adjudicator as to the existence of the alleged settlement are findings of fact and are found to be based on some evidence. It is the settled proposition in law that this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review would not reappreciate the evidence or exercise the Appellate powers. Reference in this regard can be made to:

(i) Govt. of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Narsullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373.

(ii) Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch Vs. Maharaj Singh (2003) 9

(iii) Union of India Vs. M/s Mustafa and Najibai Trading Co.

(iv) B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI (1996) I LLJ 1231 SC.