IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18204 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:13.11.2009 The Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Rewari, through its Managing Director. ... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Gurgaon and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The order in challenge is a direction for demand of 50% back wages. The workman having realized the balance of 50% on the date of reinstatement as per the award. A writ petition in Civil Writ Petition No.10321 of 1995 had been filed against the award that was originally passed only on the issue of back wages. When the case was pending before a Bench of this Court, it appears the workman had given an affidavit on 26.09.1995 to the management stating in the Civil Writ Petition No.18204 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - following words:- “1.......... 2. I affirm that I challenged the said order before the Labour Court, Gurgaon in appeal. This appeal was decided in my favour on 24.05.1994. Whereby I was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages from 29.01.1982; however an agreement has been entered between me and the Rewari Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rewari as per following terms. 3. I affirm that my case has been put in the meeting before the Board of Directors and has been approved for reinstatement from 29.01.1982 with 50% of back wages. 4. I affirm that I am satisfied with the decision of the Board of Directors. As per the agreement the bank will withdraw the case pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.” Based on the affidavit said to have been given to the management, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal as having been settled out of the Court on 07.12.1995. The workman's claim as regards his wages, therefore, stood fully satisfied. 2. However, the workman filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2), 5 years later after he was superannuated, claiming the balance of 50% on the basis of the first award which was passed finding him entitled to full back wages. The contention of the management that there was a settlement between the parties during the pendency of the earlier writ petition in Civil Writ Petition No.10321 of 1995 was rejected by the Labour Court on a finding that once there was an award providing for full wages, there could not be a denial of his right to full back wages. To the Labour Court, it appeared that if on the date of reinstatement made by the management in terms of the award the workman had not conceded for giving up his claim of full back wages, the workman will not also be barred from claiming the said amount later. Civil Writ Petition No.18204 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - 3. The reasoning of the Labour Court is clearly wrong. It must be noticed that the award of reinstatement and back wages stood modified as regards the later by a settlement between parties and in Civil Writ Petition No.10321 of 1995, the Court recorded the fact that the parties had compromised. A workman, who had to face continuation of litigation in the High Court on an issue whether he was entitled to the back wages at all stood to benefit by assuring to himself 50% of back wages. The consideration for scaling down his demand was the non- prosecution of the litigation by the management before the High Court. An affidavit given by the workman would bind the workman and he was estopped from making a claim from the remaining 50% in a separate claim petition. The claim petition was misconceived and the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the same is wrong and accordingly set aside. 4. The writ petition is, under the circumstances, is allowed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 13.11.2009 JUDGE sanjeev