AVTAR SINGH ANAND Vs. E KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Avtar Singh petitioner by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a wirt to quash the order dated 17th June 1959 of Labour Court Delhi, respondent No 1, by which Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was held entitled to recover Rs. 2,850 from the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 as also their firm Inder Singh, Avtar Singh.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 were partners in the business of coal and brickkiln under the name and style of Inder- singh Avtarsingh with the offices at Delhi and Jharia. Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was employed as a head clerk in that firm and worked as such for 16 years from 1st January 1941 to 15th December 1956. It appears that during the later part of 1956 the two partners of the above-mentioned firm fell out and on 20th October 1956 they applied for separate quotas tor themselves. In March 1957 the petitioner brought a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against defendant No. 3 and in that suit a preliminary decree was awarded in the petitioner's favour on 23rd July 1958. In the mentime a notice was given by Inder Singh respondent No. 3 to Ram Sarup respondent No. 2 terminating the latter's services with effect from 15th December 1956. Respondent No. 2 at that time was drawing a pay of Rs. 300 per mensem. Respondent No. 2 was also offered a cheque for Rs. 450, signed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3, in full and final settlement of his claim, but respondent No. 2 refused to accept that cheque. A petition under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court. According to respondent No. 2 he was entitled to Rs. 4,050 as he had been retrenched from service. His employers were stated to have not paid the amount due in spite of notice. Respondent No. 2, accordingly, prayed that the amount due to him might be computed

(3.) The petition was resisted by the petitioner and respondent No. 3.