Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Sanjay Bansal - Appellant
Versus
Munesh Kumar - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4177 of 2019 & CM Appl. 18798 of 2019
Decided On : 08-11-2021
A proper settlement extinguishes obligations under applicable labor laws, disallowing recovery claims once all disputes are resolved amicably between parties.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 - Section 21(5)(b) - Wages claim - The petitioner was ordered to pay wages and penalty to the respondent; the order was challenged after a settlement occurred - Subsequent settlement on 7th October 2017 determined the final liabilities. (Paras 3, 6-12)
(B) Settlement - Parties reached a mutual settlement recorded without coercion, fulfilling all claims under both the Shops and Establishment Act and the Industrial Disputes Act - Total payment settled was Rs. 75,000/- to the employee. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed to challenge an order directing payment of due wages and compensation after which a settlement was reached determining all disputes between the petitioner and respondent. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found the settlement to be valid, satisfying all liabilities, hence the impugned order was rendered redundant. (Paras 12)
Issues: Whether the settlement extinguishes the claims under the Shops and Establishments Act and Industrial Disputes Act, and if the order under challenge required further enforcement post-settlement. (Paras 12)
Ratio Decidendi: Given the valid mutual settlement, the court emphasized that no further claims remain between the parties and the original order was satisfied, implying no enforcement action could proceed thereafter. (Paras 12)
Result: Petition disposed of as settled without outstanding claims.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the order for unpaid wages (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. employee claims unpaid wages leading to litigation (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. mediation settlement reached between parties (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. details of settlement and payment (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. settlement dismissed claim and concluded case (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. None appears for the Respondent.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3rd October 2016 passed by the authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, North District, Labour Welfare Centre, Nimri Colony, Delhi. By the impugned order, the authority has directed the Petitioner to pay wages of Rs. 39,039/- along with a penalty/compensation of Rs. 3,903/- to the Respondent- Claimant. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
"That as discussed above, it is held that the applicant is entitled to receive the above payment of due earned wages under the Shops & Establishment Act, 1954. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon this authority by Sub-Section 3 of Section 21 of the Act, Respondent .Sh. Sanjay Bansal, Prop, of M/s. Indian Travels Service, 780, Balliinaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006 is hereby directed to pay the applicant his due earned wages decided above i.e. Rs. 39,039/- alongwith penalty/ compensation of 10 % i.e. Rs.3,903/- for not making the payment of earned wages to the applicant in time, within 30 days from the date of this order under intimation to this Authority failing which proceedings to recover the same shall be initiated as per the provisions of the law."
4. The brief background is that one Shri Munesh Kumar, who is the Respondent No. 1 in this petition, filed a claim against the Petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s Indian Travels Service Regd., 780, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, on the ground that he had been working as a field worker since 10th January, 1991 and his monthly wages amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, per month, were not paid from 1st January 2016 to 15th April 2016. The said amount was Rs. 39,039/-, which was claimed to have not been paid by the employer, leading to the filing of the said claim before the authority.
5. Vide the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2016, the order extracted above, directing the Petitioner herein to pay the said amount, along with compensation, was passed by the authority. The said award is under challenge in the present petition.
6. The submission of Mr. Rohit Singla, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that the employee had also preferred proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, finally, all the disputes were settled vide settlement dated 7th October 2017, and a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, in terms of the terms of the settlement, as recorded in the order, has been paid.
7. A perusal of the records show that mediation proceedings had taken place between the employer and the employee, and the settlement that has been entered into on 7th October 2017, has been recorded before the Delhi Mediation Centre at the Karkardooma Courts. The relevant paragraphs of the settlement reads as under:
"The mediation process explained to the parties. Single and joint sessions held with the parties. Now, the parties have agreed to settle all their disputes qua the present matter voluntarily and amicably on the following terms and conditions:-
1. It is agreed between the parties that the management shall pay a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) to the workman towards full and final settlement of all his claims/ disputes/demands arising out of the present matter including reinstatement, reemployment, back wages, earned wages, leave encashment, compensation, gratuity, bonus & any other statutory dues, if any.
2. It is agreed between the parties that the payment of the settled amount of Rs. 75,000/- shall be made by the management to the workman in the court c
