S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the employer is challenging the Recovery Certificate dated 28.7.2000 issued against it (copy annexure P -7) and also the ex -parte award passed by the Labour Court on 15.9.1993 (copy Annexure P -8) vide which the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of respondent No. 3 with continuity of service and full back wages. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Mr. K.M. Gupta, who appeared for the petitioner and filed written statement pleaded no instructions from 25.8.1993 and that the matter proceeded ex -parte against the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner in this writ petition that on 23.11.1993 the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was com - promised and settled by paying Rs. 2500/ - to respondent No. 3. The receipt of the said date and its copy which has been produced at Annexure P -2, has been made the basis of this writ petition. It may be mentioned that the award passed by the Labour Court is dated 15.9.1993 while its receipt is dated 23.11.1993 and there is a mention in the receipt that the case pending before the Labour Court, Jalandhar, will be deemed to have been finished. Of course, the case was already over on 15.9.1993 i.e. more than 2 months prior to the passing of this receipt. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that its representative has pleaded no instructions and that the petitioner was not knowing of the result of the case before the Labour Court.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The mention of the receipt and the execution thereof is in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Perusal of paragraph 3 of the written statement does not show that the execution of the receipt has been specifically denied by respondent No. 3. It has been pleaded that this receipt does not amount to settlement as per the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has relied upon the case of Thakur Hemraj Keshavji v. Shah Haridas Jethabhai and South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A.R. Chacko . It has been held therein that the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act with regard to the period for which the award shall continue to be binding on the parties is not in any way affected by the Act, However, the said principle has no relevance so far as the factual dispute between the parties is concerned. Award of course is of 1993 and the notice of recovery is 28.7.2000. The petitioner had filed an application Annexure P -4 dated 19.7.1999. The main question to be decided is whether the respondent accepted the amount stated in the receipt in lieu of all the prayers made by him before the Labour Court or not. As mentioned earlier, the representative of the petitioner had submitted that it had no instructions and the matter proceeded ex parte. Just after 2 months of the award, the receipt was executed. The execution of this receipt is not specifically denied. When this is the position, it will be proper to accept the request for quashing the award Annexure P -8 and consequently notice of recovery Annexure P -7 has also to be quashed. It is not stated by anybody during the arguments whether respondent No. 3 was reinstated or not. However, I make it clear that if respondent No. 3 is already reinstated in compliance with the award, his services shall not be terminated till the matter is again decided by the Labour Court. As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The award Annexure P -8 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Labour Court for taking decision in accordance with law after giving the parties the opportunity to lead evidence. It is made clear that if respondent No. 3 is already reinstated, he shall not be terminated by virtue of this order till the Labour Court decides the matter as directed above. Consequently, certificate Annexure P -7 is also quashed. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 19.7.2001.
(3.) PETITION allowed.;