CWP No. 7595 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7595 of 2009 Date of decision July 16 2009 Ramesh Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another . .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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 petitioner challenges the award of the Labour Court rejecting a reference made for an adjudication whether the termination of services of the workman was legal and justified. In defence to an action by the workman complaining that he was illegally terminated from service, the response on behalf of the Management was that it had actually applied to the Government of Haryana for treating some workman as surplus and for permission to retrench them. That permission had been sought for by application dated 12.10.1990 and simultaneously a notice had also been sent to the workman explaining that his services would not be necessary. The permission was in fact granted by the Government, whereupon the workman was sent a letter of termination of his services and offer was made for payment through cheque for what he was entitled to. This was refused to be received but ultimately the workman turned up CWP No. 7595 of 2009 2 in June, 1991 to sign a memorandum of settlement on 17.6.1991 and received a cheque in full accord and satisfaction. A receipt was also passed by the workman. 2. At the trial before the Labour Court, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the workman that some signatures had been taken in blank papers and that was sought to be utilized as though a voluntary settlement was made. Explaining the document that had been filed by the Management it was elicited through a witness that spoke about the documents on behalf of the Management that the workman had come to the factory in September, 1991 and that was when the signatures was taken. The attempt was therefore, to show that the so called settlement alleged to have been made on 17.6.1991 was not in fact made on that day and the evidence of Avtar Singh, a Management witness vindicated the stand of the workman that the signatures to the document had been taken on a blank paper. It was also contended on behalf of the workman that the settlement did not also confirm to Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes, Punjab Rules and the copy of the settlement had not been sent to the authorities which the relevant rule required. The workman raised a cloud on the genuineness of the settlement also by the fact that the Management had not referred to the alleged settlement at the time when the conciliation was in progress to terminate further lacks. The Labour Court, however, on appreciation of evidence of both the parties found that the workman was indeed a party to the settlement and received the cheque and his contention that he had signed the document without being apprised of the recitals could not be true. On the objection that the Labour Court did not have a power to traverse beyond the scope of reference by adjudicating on the genuineness or otherwise of the settlement, the Labour Court reasoned that question whether he was terminated or not lawfully would require adjudication relating to the so called settlement as well. The Labour Court CWP No. 7595 of 2009 3 found that the workman was guilty of fraudulent suppression relating to the settlement and rejected the reference. 3. Before me, it is contended by the workman that the settlement could not be true and referred to the contentions that the workman had advanced before the Labour Court pointing out to the discrepancy between the evidence of Avtar Singh that the signatures of the workman was taken in September, 1991 but the document itself made reference to the execution as having been made on 17.6.1991. The actual date of signing the document itself in my view does not obtain any great relevance. If there was evidence of Avtar Singh that the workman had signed only on September, 1991, he was either making a mistake about the month when it was signed or he was really subjecting it to an event that has taken place beyond the date which the document contained. The genuineness of the document will have to be tested on another ground as well, as to whether a person of full age understanding who subscribes his signatures but without apprising himself of the recitals could show his own laches to his benefit. If he had been so imprudent as not to apprise himself of the recitals he will have to lie low and take the consequences of his own failure. It is not as if the validity of the settlement will have to be considered on a stand-alone basis of whether he has signed the document on that particular date. The settlement refers to a cheque of Rs. 29533.70 and admittedly the said cheque had been received and later encashed by him. The demand notice itself was made nearly two years and four months after the event. The receipt of the cheque, its encashment and the complaint about the settlement only two years later betray the falsity of the contentions of the workman that he did not know about the recital that he was not a party to the settlement. 4. The terms of the settlement will have also to be seen in the context of certain other events which are unimpeachable CWP No. 7595 of 2009 4 namely the Management had applied to the Government for permission retrench some workman and such permission had also been granted by the Government. The learned counsel for the workman would state that the notice dated 12.10.1990 (Ex. M-2) did not make any pointed reference to the permission that was alleged to have been sought from the Government. It is indeed irrelevant that nor was there a need for such detail in the notice. The fact that permission had been granted subsequently was itself proof of the fact that the Management had sought for permission. The date when the cheque was made also bears the period which is relevant to the time when the Management had obtained permission from the Government. The cheque was dated 29.3.1991 which was about the time when the Management had also sent a notice along with cheque which however, was not received by the workman. In my view, therefore, even the fact of non reference to the application made by the Management to the Government in its notice to the workman cannot in any way enable the workman to contend that the terms could not have been true. 5. If the memorandum for settlement is valid for the fact that the amount mentioned there was also received by the workman, the only other point that would require consideration is whether it conforms to the requirement of law as enjoined in rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes, Punjab Rules, 1958. Clause 4 states as follows: “ Where a settlement is arrived at between the employer and his workman otherwise than in the grounds of conciliation proceedings before a Board or a conciliation officer the parties to the settlement was jointly sent a copy thereof to the State Government, The Labour Commissioner Punjab and the Conciliation Officer concerned. The memorandum of settlement itself contains a clause 4 which states that CWP No. 7595 of 2009 5 parties have agreed to send the copies of the settlement to the Government of Haryana. The necessity of having to send a copy is not so much to obtain its approval but more in the nature of information to the State as if to provide for a safety mechanism that the workman is not given a raw deal and is not in any way exploited by a wily Management It is not brought out in any way that the workman had complained to any authority that he had been victimized into signing some documents without being apprised of its recital or that he was forced to received a certain sum of money which he was unwilling to receive. On the other hand, I have already pointed that the receipt of the cheque and its encashment were never in question. 6. The award of the Labour Court has considered every matter that is relevant and also adverted to all the questions of law that have been with the reference to the judgments of the High Courts and I think there is no need to repeat them for their reference in the award is sufficient to indicate that the Labour Court had addressed all the issues that were raised comprehensively. The writ petition is without merit and dismissed but however, sans costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 16, 2009 archana