V I P INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. VASANT ANKUSHRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 27th March, 2012 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 15 of 2010.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 then preferred second Revision Application against the order dated 19th October, 1996 passed in complaint (ULP) No. 419/1987 and the order on review application by filing revision application (ULP) No. 23/2000 under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court after hearing the parties rejected the second revision application by its order dated 28th September, 2004 accepting the view of the Labour Court that the identical dispute raised by respondent No. 1 had been settled on monetary basis and the settlement amount was duly received by him.

(3.) During pendency of the second revision application respondent No. 1, on 3rd May, 2002 filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the ID Act to seek diverse monetary benefits i.e., earned wages for February, March, 1981, bonus for the year 1980-81, one month pay in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation, leave wages for one and half months, Provident Fund, etc. That application was dismissed in default on 5th August, 2006. Respondent No. 1 had also, on 14th February, 2006, filed criminal complaint under section 420 read with 34, Indian Penal Code before Judicial Magistrate, Nashik alleging that the petitioner had obtained his signature on a stamp paper with misrepresentation that he would be allowed to join services, which paper had been used for settling the dispute before the Government Labour Officer. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 122/2006 on which direction for investigation under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code had been given by the Court. The Sarkarwada police station, Nashik had investigated into the complaint and after recording statements of all concerned persons including the Government Labour Officer concluded that services of respondent No. 1 had been terminated as per the company rules and the termination had been subject-matter of the settlement. It also found that the allegations inter alia that the settlement was fraudulent or bogus was a false allegation. The learned Magistrate considered the report and after hearing the Counsel for respondent No. 1 dismissed the criminal complaint by passing order dated 20th February, 2007 under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.