CO OPERATIVE STORE LTD Vs. VED PRAKASH BHAMBRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ throws a challenge to the award, dated 24 May 1986, given by Sri O. P. Dwivedi, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, which award was published in the Gazette, dated 3 July 1986.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Co-operative Store, Ltd, and is running a super bazar. The respondent, Sri Ved Prakash Bhambri, was employed as cashier with the petitioner since 1966. The services of Ved Prakash Bhambri as well as of some other employees were terminated with effect from 1 May, 1976, on the ground that their services were no longer required by the petitioner. Subsequently, almost all other employees were taken back in service. However the respondent, Ved Prakash Bhambri, allegedly was not taken back as he had moved an application, dated 6 October 1976, addressed to the Accounts Officers stating that he was to go out of India as he had secured a passport and he requested that his provident fund case be forwarded to the Provident Fund Commissioner for necessary action. It appears that the respondent, Ved Prakash Bhambri, raised an industrial dispute and the matter was brought before the Conciliation Officer but without success and at the instance of Ved Prakash, the Administrator made a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, vide notification dated 3 February 1977. The term of reference was to the following effect : "whether the termination of services of Sri Ved Prakash Bhambri is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled ?" The management has taken up the plea before the Industrial Tribunal that the services of Ved Prakash were terminated as an act of retrenchment and later on the employee had willingly settled his claim with the management and in pursuance of the settlement, had received a cheque for Rs. 9,849. 33 in full and final settlement of all his claims including retrenchment benefits and the cheque was cleared for payment on 8 February 1977, and as the employee and settlement, no claim was left which could be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal.

(3.) THE employee had, however, taken the plea before the Industrial that he had not willingly or voluntarily signed the said settlement. He gave out the fact that the management had got him arrested and with connivance of the police and under threat that he could be detained under the MISA or DIR, he was coerced into signing the alleged settlement. The Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the workman has settled the claim ? (2) As per terms of reference.