IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16945 of 2000. Date of Decision : March 09, 2010. Sia Ram s/o Sh. Puran Singh, Seed Production Officer, Kartarpur, District Jalandhar ...... Petitioner. Versus. Punjab State Seeds Corporation Ltd., S.C.O. No. 835-36, Sector-22-A, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. ..... Respondent . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Parbinder Singh, Advocate, for, Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate, for respondent. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for implementation of the Award dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), and also for holding that the alleged Settlement dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-P-3) and Affidavit (Annexure-P-4) are not binding on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”) has challenged his termination from service by respondent/Management (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”), which ended up in an Award dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-P- 1), passed by the Labour Court, wherein the Workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof and full back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e., 30.11.1993. He contends that after passing of the Award, the Workman approached the Management for taking him back in service as per the Award dated 10.12.1998, passed by the Labour Court. When the Workman approached the Management, he was coerced to enter into a settlement with it as he had no other option, and, therefore, proceeded to enter into Settlement dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-P-3) and Affidavit dated 22.07.1999 (Annexure-P-4). He contends that the said Settlement and C.W.P. No. 16945 of 2000. -2- Affidavit were not given by the Workman of his own free will, but was coerced and forced to give the same as he was not in a position to dictate the terms to the Management. He on this basis contends that the Award dated 10.12.1998, passed by the Labour Court should be implemented in toto and a direction be issued to the Management to grant him full benefit of the Award dated 10.12.1998, passed by the Labour Court. On the other hand, counsel for the Management submits that after passing of the Award dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-P-1), the Workman approached the Management for taking him back in service. At this stage, the Workman voluntarily entered into a settlement with the Management and in pursuance thereof gave in writing the letter dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-P-3), which was accepted by the Management and the same was treated as a Settlement in respect of the Award dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-P-1). The petitioner not only this, but also gave an affidavit dated 22.07.1999 (Annexure- P-4), in support of the application, which he had submitted to the Management for treating it to be a Settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the Management had given him an appointment letter dated 02.08.1999 as a fresh employee, which has been placed on record as Annexure-P-5. His further contention is that there was no coercion or undue influence exercised by the Management in obtaining the said letter and affidavit from the Workman. It is merely an afterthought on the part of the Workman and a ploy was used by him to get an appointment with the Management and on having joined the same is now approaching this Court with malafide intention to claim the benefits in the Awards, which has been duly settled between the parties as per the Settlement dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-P-3) and Affidavit dated 22.07.1999 (Annexure-P-4). He on this C.W.P. No. 16945 of 2000. -3- basis prays that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. There are serious disputes on the factual aspect with regard to the contention of the Workman that the Settlement dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-P- 3) and Affidavit dated 22.07.1999 (Annexure-P-4) have been obtained by coercion and force by the Management, whereas the Management denies the same and claims that it is an afterthought on the part of the Workman, who had voluntarily entered into a settlement with the Management. These disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction as in the opinion of this Court, both oral and documentary evidence would have to be led by the respective parties in support of their respective contentions, so that a finding as to which of the two claims is correct could be recorded. That being so, the present writ petition cannot be entertained as disputed questions of fact are involved in it. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the Workman prays that liberty may be granted to the Workman to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance as has been made by him the present writ petition. Prayer granted. The liberty is granted to the Workman to avail of his remedy in accordance with law for the same cause of action as has been espoused by him in the present writ petition. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 09, 2010. sjks.