IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 521 of 2007 Reserved on: 4.8.2011. Date of Decision: 9.8.2011 Hoshiar Singh …Petitioner Versus. Labour Commissioner & others … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. & Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent No.4 Mr. B.N.Mehta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to get the award dated 23.6.1994 implemented. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was employed as a helper by Shri Phool Kumar Ahuja, respondent No.4 herein, in his factory, as a machine man. On 27.4.1991 the petitioner met with an accident while operating the machine as a result of which four fingers of his left hand were crushed. He was hospitalized and after his discharge from the hospital he went back to join his duty but respondent No.4 did not allow him to join. The petitioner, thereafter 2 challenged his termination. The matter was referred to the Labour Court who decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was held entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. This initial award was passed ex-parte on 23.6.1994. Thereafter Phool Kumar filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award, but this was rejected and the writ petition filed by Shri Phool Kumar was dismissed on 9.6.1999. 3. Despite this fact Shri Phool Kumar neither re- engaged the petitioner nor paid him the back wages. Thereafter even according to the petitioner some compromise was entered into between the petitioner and Shri Phool Kumar before the Labour Inspector, Nurpur on 30.5.2000. According to this, compromise which was witnessed by S/Sh. Raj Kumar and Pawan Kumar an amount of Rs.97,705/- was paid by the employer to the petitioner and receipt was taken. The petitioner filed a complaint on 17.7.2000 that though the matter had been compromised and he was told that he would be paid Rs.97,705/-, but in fact he was only paid Rs.42,000/- and the balance amount has not been paid to him. Complaint in this behalf was made against Shri Hans Raj, Labour Inspector that he had connived with the employer and had wrongly certified the settlement. Fresh proceedings were also initiated for implementation of the award of the Labour Court and a certificate was issued by the Labour Court under 3 Section 33 (c) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in November, 2005 to the effect that a sum of Rs.1,71,084/- was recoverable from the employer as arrears of land revenue. Phool Kumar did not care to appear and it is apparent that he has sold his factory thereafter to some other person. 4. The basic question is whether a settlement was arrived at between the parties. Even the petitioner does not deny the fact that he did enter into the settlement and agreed to receive Rs.97,705/- in full and final settlement of his claim. His grievance basically is that instead of paying him this amount he has been paid only Rs.42,000/- It is also apparent that Phool Kumar and his partner Kamna Ahuja sold the unit to Shri Dev Raj, Pawan Kumar Gupta and Atul Gupta in October, 1999. The receipt has been produced on record, which bears the signatures of the petitioner under the words that I have received a sum of Rs.97,705/-. In case the petitioner had received only Rs.42,000/- why did he appended his signatures under the words written in Hindi “Maine Rs.97,705/- vasul kar liye hain”. A perusal of the compromise and other documents shows that on 30.5.2000 the Labour Inspector had worked out the entire arrears at Rs.1,30,951/- out of which Rs.33,246/- had allegedly been paid to the workman and Rs.97,705/- remained as balance. On that day the petitioner agreed to receive this amount of Rs.97,905/- . Now the version of 4 the complainant is that this receipt was obtained by fraud and the amount was not paid to him as per this receipt and his claim be got settled. 5. The question whether the claimant has received this amount or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ proceedings. This is a question which can only be decided after evidence is led. A certificate has been issued under Section 33 (c) (1) stating what is the amount payable to the petitioner. Evidence can only be recorded by the Labour Court on the issue whether the award has been satisfied or not. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is sent back to the Labour Court, Kangra at Dharamshala to decide the question whether the petitioner had actually received a sum of Rs.97,705/- or not. It is made clear that the petitioner cannot claim that he had not entered into a compromise. The only question which the Labour Court has to decide is whether the amount as per the terms of the compromise was paid to the petitioner or not. All the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Kangra at Dharamshala on October 10, 2011. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 9th August, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.