CWP No. 7595 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 7595 of 2009
Date of decision July 16 2009
Ramesh Kumar
....... Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another
.
…….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The petitioner challenges the award of the Labour
Court rejecting a reference made for an adjudication whether the
termination of services of the workman was legal and justified. In defence
to an action by the workman complaining that he was illegally terminated
from service, the response on behalf of the Management was that it had
actually applied to the Government of Haryana for treating some workman
as surplus and for permission to retrench them. That permission had been
sought for by application dated 12.10.1990 and simultaneously a notice
had also been sent to the workman explaining that his services would not
be necessary. The permission was in fact granted by the Government,
whereupon the workman was sent a letter of termination of his services
and offer was made for payment through cheque for what he was entitled
to. This was refused to be received but ultimately the workman turned up
CWP No. 7595 of 2009 2
in June, 1991 to sign a memorandum of settlement on 17.6.1991 and
received a cheque in full accord and satisfaction. A receipt was also
passed by the workman.
2. At the trial before the Labour Court, it was sought
to be contended on behalf of the workman that some signatures had been
taken in blank papers and that was sought to be utilized as though a
voluntary settlement was made. Explaining the document that had been
filed by the Management it was elicited through a witness that spoke about
the documents on behalf of the Management that the workman had come
to the factory in September, 1991 and that was when the signatures was
taken. The attempt was therefore, to show that the so called settlement
alleged to have been made on 17.6.1991 was not in fact made on that day
and the evidence of Avtar Singh, a Management witness vindicated the
stand of the workman that the signatures to the document had been taken
on a blank paper. It was also contended on behalf of the workman that the
settlement did not also confirm to Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes,
Punjab Rules and the copy of the settlement had not been sent to the
authorities which the relevant rule required. The workman raised a cloud
on the genuineness of the settlement also by the fact that the Management
had not referred to the alleged settlement at the time when the conciliation
was in progress to terminate further lacks. The Labour Court, however, on
appreciation of evidence of both the parties found that the workman was
indeed a party to the settlement and received the cheque and his
contention that he had signed the document without being apprised of the
recitals could not be true. On the objection that the Labour Court did not
have a power to traverse beyond the scope of reference by adjudicating on
the genuineness or otherwise of the settlement, the Labour Court reasoned
that question whether he was terminated or not lawfully would require
adjudication relating to the so called settlement as well. The Labour Court
CWP No. 7595 of 2009 3
found that the workman was guilty of fraudulent suppression relating to the
settlement and rejected the reference.
3. Before me, it is contended by the workman that
the settlement could not be true and referred to the contentions that the
workman had advanced before the Labour Court pointing out to the
discrepancy between the evidence of Avtar Singh that the signatures of the
workman was taken in September, 1991 but the document itself made
reference to the execution as having been made on 17.6.1991. The actual
date of signing the document itself in my view does not obtain any great
relevance. If there was evidence of Avtar Singh that the workman had
signed only on September, 1991, he was either making a mistake about
the month when it was signed or he was really subjecting it to an event
that has taken place beyond the date which the document contained. The
genuineness of the document will have to be tested on another ground as
well, as to whether a person of full age understanding who subscribes his
signatures but without apprising himself of the recitals could show his own
laches to his benefit. If he had been so imprudent as not to apprise himself
of the recitals he will have to lie low and take the consequences of his own
failure. It is not as if the validity of the settlement will have to be considered
on a stand-alone basis of whether he has signed the document on that
particular date. The settlement refers to a cheque of Rs. 29533.70 and
admittedly the said cheque had been received and later encashed by him.
The demand notice itself was made nearly two years and four months after
the event. The receipt of the cheque, its encashment and the complaint
about the settlement only two years later betray the falsity of the
contentions of the workman that he did not know about the recital that he
was not a party to the settlement.
4. The terms of the settlement will have also to be
seen in the context of certain other events which are unimpeachable
CWP No. 7595 of 2009 4
namely the Management had applied to the Government for permission
retrench some workman and such permission had also been granted by
the Government. The learned counsel for the workman would state that
the notice dated 12.10.1990 (Ex. M-2) did not make any pointed reference
to the permission that was alleged to have been sought from the
Government. It is indeed irrelevant that nor was there a need for such
detail in the notice. The fact that permission had been granted
subsequently was itself proof of the fact that the Management had sought
for permission. The date when the cheque was made also bears the
period which is relevant to the time when the Management had obtained
permission from the Government. The cheque was dated 29.3.1991 which
was about the time when the Management had also sent a notice along
with cheque which however, was not received by the workman. In my
view, therefore, even the fact of non reference to the application made by
the Management to the Government in its notice to the workman cannot in
any way enable the workman to contend that the terms could not have
been true.
5. If the memorandum for settlement is valid for the
fact that the amount mentioned there was also received by the workman,
the only other point that would require consideration is whether it conforms
to the requirement of law as enjoined in rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes,
Punjab Rules, 1958. Clause 4 states as follows:
” Where a settlement is arrived at between the
employer and his workman otherwise than in the
grounds of conciliation proceedings before a Board or a
conciliation officer the parties to the settlement was
jointly sent a copy thereof to the State Government, The
Labour Commissioner Punjab and the Conciliation
Officer concerned.
The memorandum of settlement itself contains a clause 4 which states that
CWP No. 7595 of 2009 5
parties have agreed to send the copies of the settlement to the
Government of Haryana. The necessity of having to send a copy is not so
much to obtain its approval but more in the nature of information to the
State as if to provide for a safety mechanism that the workman is not given
a raw deal and is not in any way exploited by a wily Management It is not
brought out in any way that the workman had complained to any authority
that he had been victimized into signing some documents without being
apprised of its recital or that he was forced to received a certain sum of
money which he was unwilling to receive. On the other hand, I have
already pointed that the receipt of the cheque and its encashment were
never in question.
6. The award of the Labour Court has considered
every matter that is relevant and also adverted to all the questions of law
that have been with the reference to the judgments of the High Courts and I
think there is no need to repeat them for their reference in the award is
sufficient to indicate that the Labour Court had addressed all the issues
that were raised comprehensively. The writ petition is without merit and
dismissed but however, sans costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
July 16, 2009
archana