- (1.) Way back in the year 1993, the Management of Hindliver Chemicals Limited had filed applications under section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking approval of its actions of removal of three workmen. The learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 28.11.1994 interfered with the punishment of removal from service on the ground that the same was excessive and disproportionate and directed reinstatement of the three concerned workmen, however, without back-wages. Against the aforesaid order of the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal dated 28.11.1994, the Management instituted Civil Writ Petitions No.18590, 18591 and 18592 all of 1994. The learned single Judge hearing the writ petitions by a common order dated 8.1.2010 answered the issue arising by holding that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act would not apply to a situation where approval of the Labour Court is sought under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly the interference of the Labour Court with the punishment proposed/made by the Management was disapproved by the learned single Judge. However, the learned single Judge by the order dated 8.1.2010 held that the concerned workmen will be "entitled to obtain their respective wages from the order of termination". Against the aforesaid part of the order with regard to wages the Management has instituted LPA Nos.382, 383 and 384 of 2010 whereas against the conclusion with regard to the applicability of the Section 11-A of the Act, the three workmen have filed LPA Nos.1697, 1698 and 1699 of 2010. All the six LPAs were taken up for consideration together.
(2.) Though arguments have been heard on merits it will not be necessary for the court to address said arguments and record any finding thereon, inasmuch as, the three workmen have accepted the offer of the Management to receive the amounts deposited in the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal on account of wages in terms of the order of this court in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties. The workmen have also agreed not to raise any further dispute under section 10 of the Act and also not to press the application under Section 33(c) (2) of the Act for computation of wages pertaining to the instant matter.
(3.) As the offer made by Management is acceptable to the workmen, we do not see why the LPAs should not be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid statements made before the Court. However, to avoid any confusion or delay in the matter, we make it clear that as offered by the Management workman, Surjit Singh will be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,20,176/-; the workman, Rabhubir Singh, would be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,18,790/-whereas the third workman Darshan Singh would be entitled to receive Rs.2,76,093/-. Needless to say the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal where the aforesaid amounts are lying in deposit shall forthwith release the same to the concerned workmen on proper identification.;