MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. Vs. SHRI TRIBHUVAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred with respect to the award dated 29th April, 2004 of the Industrial Tribunal. It is deemed expedient to set out the facts from the beginning. It is the case of the respondent workman that he was w.e.f. October, 1983 to November, 1985 working as a casual mazdoor with the North West Circle, Yamuna Nagar of the Telephone Department; that w.e.f. November, 1985 till 30th June, 1987 he worked as a casual mazdoor with the petitioner Mahanagar Telephone Nagar Limited (MTNL); that his services were terminated by the petitioner MTNL in accordance with its letter dated 29th June, 1987 with one months' notice on the ground that his appointment was not as per the Rules. The respondent workman approached the Conciliation Officer at Delhi. A settlement dated 19th April, 1990 was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer and signed on behalf of the petitioner MTNL, the respondent workman and the Conciliation Officer [Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)]. As per the said settlement the petitioner MTNL agreed to pay within 30 days the retrenchment compensation after ascertaining the facts, to the respondent workman. It was also agreed that the name of the respondent workman would be sent by the petitioner MTNL to the Surplusage Cell and at the time of recruitment he shall be preferred. It was also a term of the settlement that the respondent workman shall be provided the benefits as per law and the Conciliation Officer shall be informed regarding the compliance within 90 days.

(2.) THE respondent workman vide a letter dated 20th April, 1990 to the Conciliation Officer applied for rescinding the aforesaid settlement terming it as one sided. It is also not the case of the petitioner MTNL that it, in accordance with the settlement, within 30 days thereof, paid any retrenchment compensation to the respondent workman. I find on the record of the Industrial Tribunal, summoned in this court, that the Conciliation Officer issued a letter dated 23rd November, 1990 to the petitioner MTNL regarding non -implementation of the said settlement. It further transpires from the said record that upon non -implementation of the settlement and rescission thereof by the respondent workman, again an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent workman regarding his termination as aforesaid. It was the case of the petitioner MTNL this time around before the Conciliation Officer that it had offered the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 585/ - vide cheque dated 1st January, 1991 to the respondent workman but which had not been accepted. In the circumstances the Conciliation Officer finding no possibility of settlement, the following reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal:

(3.) THE Industrial Tribunal has in the award impugned in this petition at one place held that the respondent workman has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year and at another place held that as per Section 18 of the ID Act the settlement was binding on the parties and the respondent workman was not entitled to withdraw from the same. It has also been held that the respondent workman had been given a cheque by way of compensation of retrenchment and which cheque was on record; that even though the cheque was not sent within the agreed time of 30 days and sent on 1st January, 1991 but the respondent workman having already retracted from and repudiated the settlement, the said delay in sending the cheque was of no avail and the respondent workman remained bound by the settlement. After holding so, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner was not justified in terminating the services of the respondent workman w.e.f. 1st July, 1987; but since the workman had reached a settlement before the Conciliation Officer and which settlement is binding on him, according to the terms of the settlement he should be given re -employment as and when a vacancy arises and if it is not done so by the petitioner, the workman will be entitled to reinstatement w.e.f. 1st July, 1987 with 50% back wages.