PARMA NAND Vs. MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT SEVAK SAMAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Parmanand was appoitied at first & ledger keeper in February, 1963 and was then promoted as accounts assistant in January, 1964 in the construction servie of Bharat Sewak Samaj. On 15th of July,1967 one month's notice was given to him terminating his service at the end of the month of the notice but asking him to deliver the charge on the same day and informing him that the salary for the month of notice would be given to him. The petitioner received the notice but stated that the retrenchment was illegal and vaid as conditions laid down under section 25F of the Indus- trial Disputes Act had not been fulfilled and the procedure laid under section 25G of the said Act had not been followed There was some correspondence between him and the respondent employer and ultimately on 19th December, 1967 the petitioner accepted firstly. the amount of Rs. 360.00 as retrenchment compensation in the following words "I hava this day received sum of Rs. 360.00 only being total amount of retrenchment claimed including balance of pay due to me in full and the final payment of my dues. There is no other claim of mine against Bharat Sewak Samaj and this receipt is, therefore, given in token of acknowledgment of payment." This retrenchment compensation wag pay for two months. Secondly, he received retrenchment compeasation equivalent to 7-1/2 days pay in these words on the same day "I have this day received a sum of Rs. 8. 63.00 being the total amount of retrenchment claim including balance of pay due to me in full and final payment of my dues. There is no other claim of mine against the Bharat Sewak Samaj and this receipt is, therefore, given in token of acknowledgment of payment."

(2.) On 15th July, 1968 the petitioner approached the conciliation officer alleging that his retrecnchment was coutrary to sections 25P and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act but without disclosing that he had accepted retrenchment compensation and arrears of pay in full and final payment of his dues on 19th December, 1967. On 8th of October, 1968 the petitioner made an application to the Labour Commissioner Delhi Administration mentioning that he had received a tolal payment of Rs. 423.00 but stated that he never signed certificates of full and final satisfation of his dues. On 15th November, 1970 a reference was made of this dispute to the Additional Industrial Tribunal by the Delhi Administration in the following words "Whether the retrenchment of Shri Parmanand is illegal and/or unjustified and it so, what directions are nececesary in this respect." Again in the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Additional Indutrial tibunal the petitioner complained that his retrenchment was illegal bat suppressed the statement of the material fact that he had received fall retrenchment compensation in fuil and final satisfaction of his dues. On the contrary his Union stated that "no full and final settlement of the account of the above named workman has been made so far as provided in the 1. D. Act." When the employer pointed out in the reply that retrenchment compensation slated above has been accepted by the petitioner in full and final payment of his dues, the.petitioner filed a rejoinder in para 6 of which he staled as follows "the workman did receive certain dues from Bharat Sewak Samaj after long waiting on 19th December, 1967 but did not sign any statement as referred to in para 6 of the written statemnt" the reference being to the defence of certificate of full and final payment. Even the amount received was not explicitley admitted but was only stated that the "workman did receive certain dues.' It was not even stated that the amount was received as rerrenchment compensation.

(3.) The Additional Industrial Tribunal framed the prelimnary issue as to whether any dispute to be tried by him survived after the acceptance of retrenchment compensation in full and dual satisfation by the workman. He came to the conclusion that no dispute survived thereafter and made the award against the .workman accordingly. In the present writ petition this award is impugned by the workman Even in this writ petition the workman referred to the plea of the employer before the Tribunal that the, workman had taken his dues in full and final settlement and answered it by what he had stated in the rejoinder before the Tribunal. The petitioner refused to admit in the petition that he had received any payment from the employer except a sum of Rs 42.00 and a sum o.f Rs. 6.3.00 He did not state anywhere in the petition that the retrenchment compensation of Rs.360.00 and retrenchment compensation plus arrears of pay amounting to Rs. 63.00 were paid to him on execution of two stamped receipts by him on 19th December,1987.