Hercules
Mechl. Works & Ors. Vs. Wire Ropes Eng. Workers Union [2009] INSC 1159 (7
July 2009)
Judgment
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
TARUN
CHATTERJEE, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
On 19th 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later withdrawn.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 20th 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 of such
payment shall be made by 15th of July, 2009 to the concerned workman and
thereafter shall go on paying every month within 15th 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.
The appeal is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to
costs.
...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
..........................J.
New Delhi;
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
