Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
M/s Wearwell (india) Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Nizam - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2034/2022
Decided On : 02-02-2022
Settlement - Industrial Disputes - Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Section 15(2) - Section 18(1) ID Act - [Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act, 1936] - The judgment discusses the validity and legal implications of settlements entered into in Industrial Disputes, emphasizing that settlements can be entered into between Management and Workman even outside the court/conciliation proceedings as per Section 18(1) ID Act. Such settlements would be valid and legal and would be binding on the parties. The Court should accept the settlement and not go into the merits of the matter, providing finality to the settlement and avoiding delays involving expending of precious judicial time.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute between a Workman and Management regarding the amount payable as per a settlement entered into before the Conciliation officer under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Appellate Court held that the pre-deposit amount cannot be refunded as the settlement was not acknowledged and accepted by the Workman.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the settlement was valid and binding on the parties, and the amount deposited with the Appellate Court was directed to be refunded to the Management in view of the settlement. The Workman was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Court if there was any dispute in respect of the settlement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity and legal implications of the settlement entered into before the Conciliation officer, and the refund of the pre-deposit amount by the Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the validity and legal implications of settlements entered into in Industrial Disputes, stating that settlements can be entered into between Management and Workman even outside the court/conciliation proceedings as per Section 18(1) ID Act. Such settlements would be valid and legal and would be binding on the parties.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the amount deposited with the Appellate Court was directed to be refunded to the Management in view of the settlement. The Workman was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Court if there was any dispute in respect of the settlement.
ORDER
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 5850/2022 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
WP(C) 2034/2022 & CM APPL. 5849/2022 (for stay)
3. The present writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 7th August, 2020 in RCA No. 53/2019 titled Wear well (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nizam passed by the D&SJ, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "Appellate Court"). Vide the impugned order the appeal against the order dated 29th November, 2018 in PWA No. 73/2018 titled Mohd. Nizam v. M/s Wear Well India Pvt. Ltd. passed by Addl. D&SJ, POLC-V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Authority") under the section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter "Act") has been partially set aside.
4. The background of this petition is that the Respondent/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") was working as a Tailor with the Petitioner/Management (hereinafter "Management") and the last drawn salary was Rs. 11,830/-. The Management claims that it had placed the Workman under suspension on 16th December, 2017 and a charge sheet was issued. However, the claim of the Workman was that he was terminated by the Management on 18th December 2017.
5. The Workman then approached the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein he along with 21 other workmen, entered into a settlement dated 03rd May 2018 with the Management. Terms of the said settlement read as under:
"1. The management will reinstate all the complainant workmen expect Sh. Kalim, Sh. Hussain and Sh. Firoz, with the continuity of service w.e.f. 04/05/2018.
2. The workmen have agreed that they will work with honesty and will maintain peace in the factory and will help to increase the production.
3. It has also been agreed between both the parties that the interest of peace and harmony of the factory, all the disputes/claims/complaints of bonus and contract Labour raised/filed by them shall be deemed to have been withdrawn after this settlement. The management has also agreed to withdraw all the cases i.e. charge sheet, suspension order/police complaints against the workmen."
6. However, disputes thereafter arose in respect of the amount payable as per the terms of the said settlement entered into before the Conciliation officer. This led to the Workman approaching the authority under section 15(2) of the Act. The said dispute was adjudicated by the Authority on 29th November, 2018 by holding that a sum of Rs. 3,01,466/- would be payable to the Workman. The order reads as under:
"30. In view of the outcome of issue No.2, the claimant is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,01,466/- (27,406 + 2,74,060 amount of wages deducted +10 times penalty).
31. Accordingly, in these circumstances, in terms of provisions of section 15 (5) (b) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the court hereby issue a direction to the ld. CMM, Dwarka Court to recover the said amount of Rs. 3,01,466/- as if it were a fine imposed by a Magistrate in terms of provisions of Section 421 (1) (a) of the Cr.P.C.
32. Petition accordingly stands Allowed. "
7. The said order of the Authority was challenged before the ld. Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 2349/2019 titled Wear well (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nizam. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13th March 2019 while granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Court under the Act after depositing the amount of Rs.27,406/-. The order reads as under:
"2. This Court is satisfied that this case is similar to W.P.(C) 1698/2019 and the petitioner's prayer for similar order is justified. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority under the Act by depositing only the actual wages found due to the respondent under the impugned order. Upon depositing of the actual wages found due to the respondent, the Appellate Authority shall consider the petitioner's appeal on merits wit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
