HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition the Petitioner has prayed that the Respondents be directed to get the award dated 23.6.1994 implemented.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the Petitioner was employed as a helper by Shri Phool Kumar Ahuja, Respondent No. 4 herein, in his factory, as a machine man. On 27.4.1991 the Petitioner met with an accident while operating the machine as a result of which four fingers of his left hand were crushed. He was hospitalized and after his discharge from the hospital he went back to join his duty but Respondent No. 4 did not allow him to join. The Petitioner, thereafter challenged his termination. The matter was referred to the Labour Court who decided the matter in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was held entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. This initial award was passed ex -parte on 23.6.1994. Thereafter Phool Kumar filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte award, but this was rejected and the writ petition filed by Shri Phool Kumar was dismissed on 9.6.1999.

(3.) THE basic question is whether a settlement was arrived at between the parties. Even the Petitioner does not deny the fact that he did enter into the settlement and agreed to receive Rs. 97,705/ - in full and final settlement of his claim. His grievance basically is that instead of paying him this amount he has been paid only Rs. 42,000/ - It is also apparent that Phool Kumar and his partner Kamna Ahuja sold the unit to Shri Dev Raj, Pawan Kumar Gupta and Atul Gupta in October, 1999. The receipt has been produced on record, which bears the signatures of the Petitioner under the words that I have received a sum of Rs. 97,705/ -. In case the Petitioner had received only Rs. 42,000/ - why did he appended his signatures under the words written in Hindi "Maine Rs. 97,705/ - vasul kar liye hain". A perusal of the compromise and other documents shows that on 30.5.2000 the Labour Inspector had worked out the entire arrears at Rs. 1,30,951/ - out of which Rs. 33,246/ - had allegedly been paid to the workman and Rs. 97,705/ - remained as balance. On that day the Petitioner agreed to receive this amount of Rs. 97,905/ -. Now the version of the complainant is that this receipt was obtained by fraud and the amount was not paid to him as per this receipt and his claim be got settled.