Jagdish Singh vs Neeraj Gupta and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner workman had raised an industrial dispute against the Respondent No. 1 employer about the illegal termination of his employment. The said industrial dispute was adjudicated vide award dated 02.05.06. The Respondent No. 1 employer was held to have terminated the employment of the Petitioner workman illegally and was directed to reinstate the Petitioner workman with full back wages and continuity of service.

This writ petition has been filed pleading that the Respondent No. 2 Mr. Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary of Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) was representing the Petitioner in the proceedings aforesaid before the Industrial Adjudicator and in collusion with one Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey, Secretary Shram Jivi Vikas Union settled the dispute with the Respondent No. 1 employer and appropriated the entire settlement amount to himself and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has in the present petition sought direction for implementation of the award and for action to be taken against the Respondent No. 2.

Notice of the petition was issued. The Respondent No. 1 employer in his counter affidavit has stated that the Petitioner had settled the dispute with the Respondent No. 1 employer and had also furnished his affidavit in support of the said settlement. As per the documents of settlement produced by the Respondent No. 1 employer, the Petitioner received a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- from the Respondent No. 1 employer in full and final settlement of his claims against the Respondent No. 1. The said documents besides purporting to bear the signatures and thumb impression of the Petitioner also bear the signature of Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey as a witness.

The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit aforesaid and in which he has not denied his signatures on the documents produced by the Respondent No. 1 employer but has stated that the said signatures were obtained by the Respondent No. 2 from the Petitioner by practicing deceit.

The Respondent No. 2 in his counter affidavit has denied having represented the Petitioner and has placed the blame if any on Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey.

In the circumstances aforesaid, the Petitioner has filed CM No. 3692/2011 for impleading Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey as Respondent to the present petition. For the last few dates, the matter is being adjourned for service of the said Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey. Notice sent to Sh. Awdesh Kumar Pandey at the address furnished by the Respondent No. 2 has been received back unserved with the endorsement that he has left the Union.

The arguing counsel for the Petitioner has chosen not to appear. The counsel who appears has No. idea about the case.

In the circumstances aforesaid, it is felt that No. directions as sought to the Respondent No. 1 employer to implement the award can be issued. In the state of pleadings aforesaid, it does appear that the Petitioner admits that as far as the Respondent No. 1 employer is concerned, a settlement was arrived at. If at all the Petitioner claims to be entitled to still implement that award against Respondent No. 1 employer, the Respondent No. 1 employer is to be given a chance to prove that in view of settlement, the award stands satisfied. The same will entail disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The remedy if any of the Petitioner against the Respondent No. 1 employer is u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Insofar as the claims of the Petitioner against the Respondent No. 2 Kapil Dev Pandey and the proposed Respondent No. 4 Sh. Avdesh Kumar Pandey are concerned, in any case, the same are not entertainable and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings against them for the loss if any caused by them to the Petitioner.

The petition is accordingly disposed of. No. order as to costs.