1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:
“(A) A writ of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction be issued to quash and set aside th original award dated 2nd January, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.74 of 1995, order dated 3rd November, 2008 passed in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006 and order dated 07th December, 2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2010;
(B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the award dated 2nd January, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.74 of 1995, order dated 3rd November, 2008 passed in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006 and order dated 7th December, 2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2010;
(C) Any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted;”
2. The brief and relevant facts of the case, are that the petitioner is a private limited Company which had engaged a Labour Contractor by the name of Ramdhari Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was serving with the contractor and not with the petitioner-company. However, respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner regarding termination of his services with effect from 3rd October, 1994. After necessary procedure, the Labour Court made an award dated 2nd January, 2006, holding the termination of respondent No.1 to be illegal and directing that the said respondent to be paid full back wages from 3rd October, 1994 till 11th April, 1999, which is the date of closure of the petitioner company.
3. On the basis of the Award, respondent No.1 filed an application, being Recovery Application No.76 of 2006. The learned advocate for the petitioner had remained absent, therefore, an ex-parte order was passed on 3rd November, 2008 in the Recovery Application, directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs.1,68,068.80. On the basis of the said order, a Recovery Certificate was issued in Recovery Proceeding No.7 of 2009, by the order of the Labour Court dated 24th September, 2010. On coming to know of the said order, the petitioner filed an application being Restoration Application No.42 of 2010, along with an application for stay under Rule 26 (A) and 26 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that no application for condonation of delay had been filed.
4. Being aggrieved by the award dated 2nd of January, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, order dated 3rd November, 2008 passed in the recovery application and order dated 7th December, 2011 passed in the application for restoration, the petitioner has approached this Court by making the prayers reproduced hereinabove.
5. On 23.4.2012, this Court passed an order issuing Rule and granting ad-interim-relief in terms of paragraph 7 (B) of the petition, on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.1,13,400/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, without prejudice to its rights and contentions. It has been clarified in the said order that if the amount is not deposited, the interim relief shall stand vacated.
6. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.1,13,400/- has not been deposited by the petitioner, therefore no interim relief is running in its favour, as of date.
7. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hemang Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.1.
8. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner states that the reason why the amount of Rs.1,13,400/- has not been deposited is that, the parties were in negotiation of a settlement that has now been amicably reached and has been reduced into writing, by the terms of Settlement dated 13th June, 2012. The Settlement has been signed by the petitioner and respondent No.1 and their learned advocates.
9. A copy of the Settlement is taken on the record of the case. The terms of settlement are reproduced hereinbelow.
Settlement “This settlement is arrived at between the parties on this 13th day of June, 2012.
(1) The petitioner has filed the captioned petition challenging the award dated 02nd January, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.74 of 1995, order dated 03rd November, 2008 passed in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006 and order dated 07th December, 2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2010.
(2) This Hon'ble Court has been pleased to admit the petition and on the condition of depositing of amount of Rs.01,13,440/- stay in terms of paragraph 7 (B) has been granted.
(3) Between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 workman settlement talks were going on and after several meetings, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has decided to settle the matter. Because of the fact that settlement talks were going on and the matter was likely to be settled, amount as ordered by this Hon'ble Court has not been deposited before this Hon'ble Court.
(4) It is submitted that after negotiation between the parties, the matter is amicably settled between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the petitioner and the respondent No.1 hereby agree to put an end to the litigations between the parties on the following terms and conditions:
(i) The respondent No.1 hereby confirms and agrees that the impugned award dated 02nd January, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.74 of 1995, order dated 03rd November, 2008 passed in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006 and order dated 07th December, 2011 passed in Miscellaneous application No.42 of 2010 be quashed / modified by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) The petitioner Company hereby agrees that in lieu of award of the Labour Court dated 02nd January, 2006, order dated 03rd November, 2008 passed in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006 and order dated 07th December, 2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2010, lump sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) shall be paid to respondent No.1 Jayeshkumar Shankarbhai Solanki. The respondent No.1 hereby confirms and agrees that on receipt of the said amount of Rs.80,000/-, he shall now have no claim of whatsoever nature against the petitioner Company. The said amount of Rs.80,000/- includes amount of gratuity, bonus, leave salary, backwages and reinstatement etc. Since the petitioner Company is closed, now there is no question of reinstatement. Now the respondent No.1 workman shall have no other and/or further claims against the petitioner Company.
(iii) Today the respondent No.1 has been given bearer cheque Nos.851334, 851335, 851336 and 851337 of Rs.20,000/- each dated 13th June, 2012 aggregating to Rs.80,000/- and thus the respondent No.1 has received the said amount towards full and final settlement of all his claims against the petitioner Company and now no other and/ or further claims of Respondent No.1 survive against the petitioner and therefore, all the impugned orders, as stated aforesaid, be quashed and set aside. The respondent No.1 hereby declare that he has not filed any other proceedings against the petitioner Company and even if it is found that any other proceedings have been initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner Company, the same shall be treated as withdrawn by virtue of this settlement. It is also declared by the respondent No.1 that in future also he shall not file any other or further proceedings before the petitioner before any Authority and/or Court and if it is found to have been instituted, then the same shall be treated as null and void by virtue of this settlement.
This Settlement has been entered into between the parties in conscious state of mind with full understanding at freewill and in the interest of all the parties.”
10. It is thus clear from the terms of settlement reproduced hereinabove, that the petitioner Company has agreed that in lieu of the Award of the Labour Court dated 2nd January, 2006 and order dated 3rd November, 2008 passed in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006, an amount of Rs.80,000/- shall be paid to respondent No.1 Jayesh Shankarbhai Solanki. Respondent No.1 has agreed that on receipt of the amount of Rs.80,000/-, he shall have no claim, whatsoever, against the petitioner- Company. The amount of Rs.80,000/- includes the amount of gratuity, bonus, leave salary, backwages etc. As the petitioner Company is now closed, there is no question of reinstatement.
11. Mr. Jayesh Shankarbhai Solani, respondent No.1, is present in person and has confirmed that the terms of settlement have been voluntarily and willingly arrived at, and are acceptable to him.
12. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that four cheques of Rs.20,000/- each have been handed over to respondent No.1, the details of which are as follows:
13. Respondent No.1 has confirmed the receipt of the said four cheques and has submitted the same for the perusal of the Court. The cheques are perused and returned to respondent No.1.
14. In view of the above, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of the Settlement, the following order is passed:
The Award dated 2nd of January, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, in Reference (LCK) No.74 of 1995, and the order dated 3rd November, 2008, passed in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006, shall stand modified in terms of the Settlement. The Recovery Certificate issued pursuant to the order dated 24.9.2010 passed in Recovery Application No.7 of 2009 in Recovery Application No.76 of 2006, shall not operate as the matter has been settled in terms of the Settlement arrived at between the parties.
15. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner states that in view of the Settlement, the challenge to the order dated 7th December, 2011 passed in Misc. Application No.42 of 2010 has become inconsequential, and is not pressed.
16. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
Rule made absolute to the above extent.
PIYUSH (Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.)