Full Judgment Text
1
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4142 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP©No.16799 of 2006)
Hercules Mechanical Works & Ors. …. Appellants
VERSUS
Wire Ropes Engineering Workers Union …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1.
Leave granted.
th
2. On 19 of October, 2006, this Court issued notice in the following
manner :
“ Counsel for the petitioners submits that the original
termination of service took place on 27.10.1995 which
was challenged by way of a complaint, but the
complaint was later withdrawn. In the instant case, at
best, the respondent can plead violation of Section
25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The case of the
petitioners is that the concerned workman had been
invited to work but he refused to work and thereafter a
letter was issued informing him that if he did not join
his duties, someone else may be employed in his
place. Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite
this the Labour Court has proceeded on the basis that
there was an unfair labour practice and therefore
granted relief to the workman. Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners have no
2
objection to giving employment to the workman but in
any event he should not be granted back wages.
Issue notice. In the meantime, there shall be stay
of payment of back wages.” (emphasis supplied)
From a reading of the aforesaid order of this Court, it would be
evident that inspite of directions made by the Management to the
respondent-workman to join his duties, but he had refused to join,
whereas the case of the workmen was that he was not allowed to join
his duties. For the purpose of settling the disputes between the
parties in this appeal, we have adjourned the matter for settlement
several times. However, it appears from the order of this Court dated
th
20 of April, 2007 that a direction was made at the instance of the
Management to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the Registry of this
Court and a further direction was made in that order that since the
deposit was made, fresh notice be issued to the respondent to
intimate that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was already deposited to meet the
legal expenses and that he should enter appearance to contest the
matter, if so advised. Subsequent to this order, Mr. Abhay
Chandrakant Mahimkar with Ms.Asha G.Nair, learned counsel
appeared for the respondent-workmen. As noted herein earlier, this
matter was adjourned from time to time for arriving at a proper
3
settlement. Finally, the matter came up for hearing and the parties
had agreed that the appellant-Management shall pay a total sum of
Rs.3 lacs in full satisfaction to the workmen by six equal instalments.
Since this is agreed upon by the parties, we dispose of this appeal in
the following manner.
3. On deposit of payment of Rs.3 lacs to the workman, disputes
between the parties shall finally dissolved and the workmen shall not
press for reinstatement of his services or for payment of back wages.
This amount shall be paid by six monthly equal instalments, the first
th
of such payment shall be made by 15 of July, 2009 to the concerned
th
workman and thereafter shall go on paying every month within 15 of
each succeeding month till the entire amount, as directed herein
above, is paid to the workmen. On failure of deposit of any of the
instalments, this appeal shall stand dismissed and the order of the
courts below shall stand affirmed. We also make it clear that if the
amount is paid in the manner indicated above, the respondent shall
not press for reinstatement in service or shall not press for any other
claim whatsoever.
4
4. The appeal is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to
costs.
………………………J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; .…………………….J.
July 07, 2009. [H.L.Dattu]