RAJINDER PARSHAD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point calls for determination in this writ petition whether a person after taking benefit under an award, passed by the Labour Court, by accepting monetary compensation, is entitled to challenge the said award, as a whole, after expiry of reasonable time?

(2.) RELEVANT facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner Rajinder Parshad was employed as Head Doffer with M/s. Mohan Spinning Mills, Rohtak, respondent No. 2, since June, 1967. His services were terminated vide order dated 31st August, 1984. According to the management he had committed a major misconduct resulting in large scale indicipline in the work force. Petitioner workman on the other hand, contended that he was wrongfully dismissed by way of victimisation, as he had started taking active part in trade union activities. It is further contended on his behalf that he had become joint secretary of the Cotton Textile Workers' Union. After termination of his services, petitioner served a demand notice under the Industrial Disputes Act on the management of respondent No. 2. The same having not been accepted, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Rohtak, under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication whether the termination of services of Shri Rajinder Parshad were justified and in order. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, after recording evidence of the parties, vide its award dated 29th July, 1986 (Annexure P- 6) held that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the management was fully justified in not holding domestic enquiry against the petitioner before dispensing with his services and that from the evidence on record it has been fully proved that petitioner indulged in major misconduct in striking work on 30th August, 1984. Consequently, reinstatement of the petitioner was not ordered although to mitigate the hardship he was awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000 as compensation purely on compassionate grounds. The award of Labour Court, Rohtak, has been assailed by petitioner Rajinder Parshad through present writ petition and an order of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages has been sought.

(3.) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondent No. 2 contending that the petitioner accepted the amount of Rs. 7,000 awarded by way of compensation on compassionate grounds on 16th October, 1986, in full and final settlement of his claim and executed receipt exhibit R-2/1 and that for said reason petitioner having accepted the award cannot now challenge the same by means of the present writ petition.