GENERAL MANAGER - MAFATLAL FINE SPINNING & FACTURING CO. Vs RAMNATH DHANESHWAR & ANR.

In present petition, the petitioner Company has challenged judgment dated 21.09.2012 passed by Industrial Court in Appeal No. 2 of 2010 and the judgement dated 29.12.2009 passed by learned Labour Court in TApplication No.35 of 1992. By the impugned decisions, the learned Courts directed the Company to reinstate the original claimant in service on his original post. The decision rendered by learned Labour Court whereby the learned Labour Court declared the termination as illegal and directed the Company to reinstate claimant with 40% backwages came to be confirmed in Appeal. The learned Industrial Court, after taking into account, that the claimant has reached the age of superannuation, confirmed the decision by learned Labour Court, however, modified the order and granted lump sum compensation in sum of Rs.4 lakh in lieu of reinstatement with 40% backwages.

Being aggrieved by the said decision the Company filed present petition.

Today, Mr. Master learned advocate for petitioner company and Mr. Dave learned advocate for original claimant jointly submitted that after due deliberation, the parties have arrived at amicable settlement outside the Court whereby the dispute between the parties is fully and finally settled and now any dispute or claim does not survive. Learned advocates also jointly submitted that the Company has agreed to pay Rs.3 lakh to the workman in full and final settlement of all claims and rights including those flowing from impugned judgment and the workman has agreed to accept the said amount in final settlement of all claims and rights. Learned advocates jointly submitted that the agreement between the parties is reduced into writing and the said settlement is filed before learned Labour Court.

Today, learned advocates for the claimant and the company have submitted an Application which is signed by the claimant and the Officer of the Company. The signatures of the parties are identified by the learned advocates.

It is jointly submitted that in view of the said settlement the petitioner Company withdraws the petition.

Mr. Master, learned advocate submitted that in view of the instructions received from the Company he withdraws the petition.

Therefore, following order is passed: (a) The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

(b) The pursis submitted by the claimants and the Company Officer is retained on record on the request of learned advocates.

(c) It is jointly informed by the learned advocates that earlier Company had deposited Rs.2.50 lakh with the Registry of this Court and that now it is agreed between the parties that the workman may withdraw the said amount. Mr. Master, learned advocate for the company has no objection if the said amount of Rs.2.50 lakh is disbursed/ paid to the claimant. Therefore, it is clarified that it will be open to the claimant to file application for withdrawal of the said amount. As and when such application is filed,the Registry will examine the application, and after verifying the proof of identity of the workman, the registry can, on its satisfaction pay the amount by Account Payee cheque in name of the claimant, with accrued interest, if any.