STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. JAGPAL SINGH TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High court.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual background will be necessary: the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the employee") was a work-charged employee in Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee. The project was completed on 28/2/1982 and like other similarly work-charged employees his services came to an end. Order in this regard was passed on 25/2/1982. The respondent employee raised a dispute before the Conciliation officer, Saharanpur in 1988 who after examining the claim dismissed it on 25/1/1990 and no reference was made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act"). A writ petition was filed by the respondent employee before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed. However, the respondent employee was permitted to make a representation or to approach the Government for a fresh consideration. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court which directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. Both the State Government and the employee filed writ petitions. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State government but remitted the matter to the Labour Court to consider the desirability by restricting back wages to 50%, in the writ petition filed by the respondent employee. After the matter was remitted to the Labour Court, according to the appellant State, a settlement was arrived at and the respondent employee accepted Rs 1,21,245. 00 in full and final settlement of the claim. The Labour Court felt that the settlement arrived at between the parties was not fair and was apparently on the basis of pressure and undue influence exercised by the employer. Accordingly, 100% back wages were awarded. The State Government questioned the correctness of the decision by filing a writ petition which as noted above was dismissed by the High Court. According to the High Court, the settlement was not a free and fair one and it appeared to be contrary to law and in violation of the order passed by the high Court earlier.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that there was nothing on record to show that there was any pressure put on the respondent employee or that undue influence was exercised. The conclusion was arrived at without pleadings in this regard. For the first time in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court, stand to that effect was taken. Without any material to support the contention, the High Court held that the settlement was not proper and in order to frustrate the order passed by the High Court, the same was arrived at. The effect of the affidavits and the undertaking was totally ignored. In response learned counsel for the respondent employee submitted that it is apparent that the respondent employee in his anxiety to get some benefit had entered into a settlement and the High Court has rightly held that the affidavits and undertaking were obtained by pressurising him and by use of undue pressure.