AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The 1st petition is filed by Konkan Railway Corporation, calling in question the award dt. 6/4/2006 in C.R. No. 144/97 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, for short ''Labour Court'' direction payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Respondent. In full and final settlement of his claims and in lieu of reinstatement. The connected petition is filed by the workman, aggrieved by the very same award of the Labour Court, declining reinstatement, continuity of service, backwages and consequential benefits.
Sri. Naik, learned Counsel for the Konkan Railway Corporation, for short ''Corporation'', submits that if the connected petition filed by the workman is dismissed, the Corporation would not press its writ petition.
Heard Sri. Naik, learned Sr. Counsel for Corporation and Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel for the wrkman and examined the award impugned. The question for decision making is.
Whether in the facts and circumstances, the workman, having accepted Rs. 1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all claims towards reinstatement, backwages, etc. from the Corporation in terms of the award impugned, without any reservation, has by comduct, waived his right to challenge the award impugned?
The industrial dispute raised by the workman was over refusal of employment having worked form 1/11/1991 p 31/3/1994. The Labour Court, on the material on record, assumed that the workman was an employee under the Corporation and his service when dispersed with, was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1747, for short ''ID act'' and against the protection u/s 2(00) of the ID act, tantamounting to fllegal retrenchment. The Labour Court keeping in mind that the termination of service was in the year 1994 and almost 12 years had elapsed, held that reinstatement was not desirable and accordingly directed payment of Rs. 1,00,00/- as compensation, in full and final settlement of all the claims of the workman, by the award impugned.
Enclosed to the memo dt. 12/8/2011 of the Corporation, is a letter dt. 25/8/2006 of the workman addressed to the Corporation, calling upon it to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as also informing the fact of having filed an application before the asst. Labour Commissioner. Mangalore, to prosecute the Corporation for non-implementation of the award. Also enclosed is a copy of the letter dt. 22/8/2006 of the Corporation, addressed to the workman enciosing a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claims in terms of the award Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel for the workman, does not dispute the said two documents.
In the light of the conduct of the workman in initiation prosecution proceeding for non-implementation of the award impugned, coupled with the receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all his claims, as directed in the award impugned, it goes without saying that the workman having accepted the correctness of the award, cannot make a turn about and challenge the legality and validity in directing compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and all other claims.
In Sanath Kumar Dwivedi v. Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit and Ors. AIR 2001 SCW 2430 the Apex Court having regard to the fact that the workman had accepted reinstatement without backwages by his joining report, held that by his own conduct accepted the correctness of the order of reinstatement without backwages and hence a dispute with regard to backwages was clearly not maintainable, following the decision in State of Punjab and others Vs. Krishan Niwas, .
In Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, , the Apex Court, having considered the jurisdiction u/s 11A and 11 of the ID Act, held that Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reating to procedural laws like estoppel. Waiver and acquiescence, are equally applicable to industrial proceedings, and that a person in a certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio. The facts in that case were that the workman did not raise any industrial dispute questioning the termination of her service within a reasonable time, though accepted an alternate employment, where she was regularly employed. The Apex Court further held that the workman having approached the Labour Court after more than 7 years, was a relevant factor for refusing to grant any relief for her, more so, since the workman was not appointed by the employer in a permant vacancy.
Sri Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel for the workman, though contends that the aforesaid judgments have no application to the facts of this case. I am afraid, in the light of the letter dt. 25/8/2011 of the workman enclosed to the memo dt. 12/8/2001 of the Corporation, it cannot but be held that applying the principles of waiver and estcppei, the conduct of the Petitioner disentitles a challenge to the award.
Sri. Subramanya Bhat, points to the decision of the Apex Court in Nap Singh Pal v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 2 LLM 407 to contened that mere acceptance of retrenchment compensation and encashment of cheque, would not deprive a workman of his fundamental rights under Considetion, since termination being in violation of principles of natural justice. It is no doubt true that a workman accepting him to question the order of reterchment, but such is not the facts in the instant case as noticed supra and therefore that judgment has no application.
In the result the writ Petitioners, filed by the workman and Corporation, are rejected.