Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 657 (JHR)

Blue Star Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2003-06-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the concerned workmen. No one appears on behalf of the other respondents, 2. In the instant case the only question that arose for consideration is whether in a reference case the Labour Court was justified to reject the compromise petition by passing the impugned order dated 19.5.1994. 3. It appears that one Mr. D.K. Anthony was in the service of petitioner M/s Blue Star Limited. The dispute with regard to regularisation of the services was raised and finally the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the following dispute : "Whether the relationship of employer and workmen exist between M/s Blue Star Limited and Sri. D.K. Anthony, Corporator, and if so, from the date Sri D.K. Anthony is entitled to regular appointment and any relief in the service of Blue Star Limited." 4. It appears that during the pendency of the reference case a compromise petition dated 13.8.1992 was filed on 25.1.1994 on behalf of the concerned workman and the employer. The union namely M/s Blue Star Employees Union filed a rejoinder disputing the genuineness of the compromise and raised objection that the reference case cannot be decided on the basis of compromise signed by D.K. Anthony who was not a party in the reference case. Another petition dated 16.3.1994 was also filed subsequently on behalf of the workman D.K. Anthony wherein he has disputed the genuineness of the compromise. In the compromise petition it is mentioned that the workman Sri D.K. Anthony received a sum of Rs. 35,000/- from the management and has relinquished his claim for his appointment. The concerned workman D.K. Anthony in his petition stated that he was paid Rs. 35.000/-against his arrears of wages. The Labour Court held that an award in a reference case cannot be made on the basis of compromise petition for the reason that Sri D.K. Anthony is not a party to the reference case and he is not competent to enter into an agreement and also for the reason that he has denied his signature in the compromise petition. Accordingly the Labour Court rejected the compromise dated 13.8.1992. 5. Admittedly it is Sri. Accordingly the Labour Court rejected the compromise dated 13.8.1992. 5. Admittedly it is Sri. D.K. Anthony the concerned workman for whose regular appointment a dispute was raised and the same was referred to the Labour Court. He has admitted the receipt of Rs. 35,000/-but on account of his arrears of wages and not for the purpose of relinquishing his claim. The petitioners case on the one hand is that the concerned workman resolved his dispute by entering into a compromise whereas the workman Sri D.K. Anthony disputed the genuineness of the compromise petition. In such a circumstances the Labour Court without recording any evidence ought not to have outrightly rejected the compromise petition merely because of the objection raised by the union and the concerned workman. The better course which the Labour Court ought to have adopted is that at the time of deciding the reference case on merit parties would have been allowed to prove genuineness of the compromise also. In my opinion therefore, the Labour Court while deciding the reference case on merit shall allow both the management and the concerned union/ workman to lead evidence on the genuineness of the compromise and the Labour Court shall also record a finding on the genuineness of the compromise. 6. For the aforesaid reason this writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to decide the reference case on merit and while doing so he shall also record the finding with regard to the genuineness of the compromise by giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence in support of their case. Since the reference is pending for the last 14-15 years the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of this order.