ESCORTS MAHLE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a settlement between the workman and the Management, the execution and validity of which is questioned, can frame an absolute bar on the powers of the appropriate Government to make a reference of dispute relating to termination under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is the short question but pertinent question of law that arises for consideration in the present writ petition before us. In order to examine the merit of the rival contentions raised by the respective parties to this lis and to decide the above question, reference to basic facts of the case would be necessary.

(2.) Shri Gurmail Singh, workman-respondent No. 3, was employed in the factory of Escorts Mahle Limited at Bahadurgarh, Patiala on 1.11.1967. On 25.9.1999, according to the Management, the workman sought early retirement on the ground that he was unable to continue with his job in view of his domestic circumstances. The Management claimed to have entered into a settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the act, read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules, 1958. Upon execution of this settlement, a sum of Rs. 2,50,229/- (Rs. 2,40,024/- by check and Rs. 10,275/- by cash) is stated to have been paid by the Management to the workman. Copy of the settlement was sent by the Management to the Secretary, Labour Punjab on 30.9.1999 in accordance with rules which was received on 1.10.1999 in the office of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab. Workman also received, on account of his gratuity, a sum of Rs. 96268/- which was paid on 13.10.1999 in terms of the application and affidavit submitted by the workman on 29.9.1999. In spite of having taken early voluntary retirement together with the benefits afore- referred and service compensation, workman served a demand notice on 24.12.1999 upon the Management asking for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. By note dated 25.2.2000, the Conciliation Officer could not settle the matter. However, he recommended the case of workman to be rejected as he has taken voluntary retirement and had claimed all the dues. It is the case of the Management that despite above facts, the appropriate Government vide order dated 8.5.2000, referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Patiala, while exercising its powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. Challenge in the writ petition is to this order of reference.

(3.) Upon notice, the workman filed the written statement. According to the workman, he had never tendered any application for voluntary retirement from his employment. On the contrary, certain blank papers were got signed by the Management fraudulently. The signatures of the workman were obtained on some letter heads of the company, plain papers, blank vouchers and some other papers. According to the workman, his services have been terminated illegally and on the basis of these forged documents, the Management have thrown the workman out of his employment. There was no occasion for the workman to seek voluntary retirement and large number of employees, who were working with the workman, still continue to work in the company. The workman pleaded that his services were wrongly terminated on 27.9.1999. His signatures were obtained on 25.9.1999; 26.9.1999 was a weekly rest for the workman and on 27.9.1999 he was refused entry to the factory on the plea that his services were no longer required as payments had already been paid to him. This demand notice was served by the workman on 25th September, 1999. There was no dispute pending or even apprehending between the workman and employer so as to necessitate execution of settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Act. This was an attempt on the part of the Management to obtain/procure the signatures of the answering respondent on certain documents which were subsequently mis- used and termed as resignation/settlement between the workman and the Management.