TEJINDER SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.3.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda whereby his applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,400/- for the period from 14.7.1993 to 13.9.1993 @ Rs. 2,100/- per month and for recovery of another sum of Rs. 7,800/- for the period from 14.9.1993 to 13.12.1993 @ Rs. 2,600/- per month for the services rendered by him as a Salesman with the respondent No. 1 Society, had been dismissed on the ground that there was authorization by the Society for Hardeep Singh, Secretary and Gurcharan Singh, Committee Member jointly to represent the respondent-Society and not for Hardeep Singh, Secretary alone. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 society is a registered body under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and its proceedings are conducted on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Society.

(2.) The petitioner asserts that the Society had effected a settlement with him through its President Balwinder Singh and Secretary Hardeep Singh and the doctrine of promissory estoppel mandates that they cannot now back out from the agreement entered into by them for and on behalf of the Society with the petitioner. On the other hand, stand of the respondent-Society is that it had not authorized Balwinder Singh and Hardeep Singh but had rather authorized Gurcharan Singh and Hardeep Singh to represent it. The respondent-Society has also taken another ancillary plea that the settlement (Annexure P-2) under Section 12(3) of the Act is not a valid agreement in the eyes of law in as much as it has been signed by Balwinder Singh President and Hardeep Singh, Secretary merely as witnesses to the said document and not as a necessary party.

(3.) Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while perusing the paper book.