Delhi District Court
Achhey Lal vs M/S. Makhija And Co on 25 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT-IX
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
LIR No. 444/21
CNR-DLCT13-000771-2021
Sh. Achhey Lal (Age-53 years)
S/o Sh. Kanshi Nath,
Mobile No. 8447031882,
R/o Jhughi No. W-30-9/95,
Jawahar Camp,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
Through:
Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma,
Mobile No. 9990151720,
Chamber No. 346,
Western Wing, Tis Hazari,
Delhi-110054.
......Workman
Versus
1. M/s Makhija & Co.,
11, DDA Office Complex,
Nanakpura, New Delhi-110021
Through :
Its Sh. Divyanshu Makhija (Director),
Mobile No. 9811032712.
2. M/s Makhija & Co.,
1/103m W.H.S. Timber Market,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi
Through :
Its Sh. Divyanshu Makhija (Director),
Mobile No. 9811032712.
......Managements
LIR No.444/21
Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.1 of 8
Date of Institution : 25.02.2021
Date of Award reserved on : 25.09.2023
Date of Award : 25.09.2023
AWAR D
1. By this award, I shall dispose of the reference as sent by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, District South-West, Govt. of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi arising between the parties named above
to this court vide notification No. F. 24/257/19/Ref./SWD/Lab./ 14348-14351
dated 16.12.2019 with the following terms of reference:-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Achhey Lal (Age-
53 years) S/o Sh. Kanshi Nath, Mobile No. 8447031882,
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management; if so, to what relief is she entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The workman has filed statement of claim on notice from the Court. In
the statement of claim workman has pleaded that he was selected by the
management no.1 M/s. Makhija & company in the year 1988 for the post of
Peon/Watchman. The workman has been kept to take care of the Godown of
the management no.1. At the time of joining of the workman, management
no.1 has not issued any appointment/joining letter to him and only on the oral
assurances of the managements, the workman had started his job with the
management no.1 as Peon/Watchman on monthly salary of Rs 1000/-. He
continuously worked with the management company without any break till
2018. Management had provided one room set to the workman on the second
floor of its building with a room rent of Rs 50/- per month which was
increased from time to time. Workman used to work from 7:00 AM till 11:30
LIR No.444/21
Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.2 of 8
PM continuously for 16.30 hours without payment of any overtime till
11.01.2018. Management used to deduct some amount from the salary of
workman every month in the name of ESI, PF etc. however neither PF nor
ESI Slips were issued to the workman nor the ESI card was provided to him.
He was given only 25-28 days leave in a year upon written application. He
further submitted that his services were illegally terminated on 11.01.2018
without giving any prior notice, intimation or any cogent reason. He was not
being paid salary since October 2017 at a sum of Rs 11,000/- per month. He
had also filed a complaint dated 28.09.2018 before Labour Commissioner.
Legal notice dated 28.12.2018 was sent to managements through his Advocate
which was returned by the official of the management. It is submitted that
workman is unemployed since his illegal termination and despite his best
efforts he could not find a job. The workman is unemployed since the date of
illegal termination of his service till date. He has prayed for reinstatement
with full back wages, continuity in service and all the consequential benefits.
3. Notice of the statement of claim was issued to the managements who
appeared before the Court and claim of the workman was duly replied by the
managements/respondents. It was stated that the claim of the workman is not
maintainable as he has concealed and suppressed material facts including
previous litigations as well as compromise arrived at between the parties. It is
further submitted that the management itself had filed a suit for possession,
permanent injunction and mesne profits against the workman bearing CS No.
681/2017 titled "Sh. Madan Lal Makhija v. sh. Achhey Lal" before the Civil
Court on 26.05.2017, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi wherein the workman entered
into a compromise with the management which compromise was reduced to
writing in the form of an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and decree
was passed by the Court on 10.01.2018 after duly recording the statement of
LIR No.444/21
Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.3 of 8
the workman, wherein he had taken a full and final settlement of Rs 5 lakhs
towards his dues and agreed not to file any other claims against the
management. Other averments of the workman were denied. It was prayed
that the claim of the workman should be dismissed.
4. In terms of the order dated 27.07.2023 admission/denial of the
documents were conducted. Preliminary issue was also settled which reads as
under :
1. Whether in view of admitted documents Ex. P-1 to Ex.
P-4 the matter has already been settled between the
parties including compensation, if any, under Section 25F
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? OPM-1 and M-2
5. Arguments were heard on the same. Record perused.
6. Now by and large stand has been taken by the
respondents/managements that the management had filed a suit for
possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits against the workman and
therein the workman had entered into a compromise whereafter the suit was
disposed and decree was passed. The workman had taken a sum of Rs
5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) towards all his dues and agreed not to file any
other complaint or claim against the management. The said suit bearing Civil
Suit no. 681/17 titled as Sh. Madan Lal Makhija Vs. Sh. Achhey Lal was
disposed off on 10.01.2018 by Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Owing to
the said settlement the present petition is devoid of cause of action or perse is
non starter as the workman had settled all his dues including the dues with
respect to which he is litigating herein. Apart whereof the workman had
concealed the said fact in his statement of claim.
LIR No.444/21
Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.4 of 8
7. I have perused the statement of the parties recorded before Ld. ADJ, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi which is Ex. P-4. Statement of workman which is Ex. P-
3. Same reads as under :
Statement of Sh. Achhey Lal S/o Sh. Kashi Nath R/o 1/103, WHS,
Timber Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, aged about 48 years.
On S.A.
I am the defendant in the present suit. I state that all the
plaintiffs have compromised the present matter with me in accordance
with the terms and conditions as contained in the joint application U/o
23 Rule 3 of the CPC which is accompanied by the affidavits of all the
legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff except Smt. Shailja Seth, who is the
daughter of the deceased plaintiff and who is presently in USA and
which is also accompanied by my affidavit. The application also bears
the signatures of Sh. Divanshu Makhija, one of the LR's of the
deceased plaintiff at point A encircled in red and my signatures at
point B. The joint application has already been exhibited as Ex. C1 in
the statement of Sh. Divyanshu Makhija which has been recorded
separately today in the Court. I undertake to abide by the terms and
conditions as contained in Ex. C1. I also undertake to vacate the suit
property today itself and to hand over the possession of the same to Sh.
Divyanshu Makhija by the evening of 10.01.2018. I have also received
the Demand Drafts (four in number, the photocopies of which have
been placed on record) amounting to Rs 5 lacs from Sh. Divyanshu
Makhija today in the Court. I further state that the present suit may be
disposed off as compromised in terms of Ex. C1.
Statement of Divyanshu Makhija S/o Late Sh. Pradeep Makhija
(Grand Son of the deceased plaintiff) R/o 27/28, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-8, aged about 35 years.
On S.A.
I am the grand son of the deceased plaintiff and one of the
LR's of the deceased plaintiff. I am also the beneficiary of the Will left
behind by the deceased plaintiff. I state that all the plaintiffs have
compromised the present matter with the defendant in accordance with
the terms and conditions as contained in the joint application U/o 23
Rule 3 of the CPC which is accompanied by the affidavits of all the
legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff except Smt. Shailja Seth, who is the
daughter of the deceased plaintiff and who is presently in USA. The
application also bears my signatures at point A encircled in red and
the signatures of the defendant at point B. The joint application is
exhibited as Ex.C1. I undertake to abide by the terms and conditions
as contained in Ex. C1. The defendant has undertaken to vacate the
suit property today itself and to hand over the possession of the same
LIR No.444/21
Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.5 of 8
to me by the evening of 10.01.2018. I have also handed over the
Demand Drafts (four in number, the photocopies of which have been
placed on record) amounting to Rs 5 lacs to the defendant today in the
Court. I further state that the present suit may be disposed off as
compromised in terms of Ex. C1.
7.1. Perusal of the said statement reveals that the workman who was
defendant in the said suit had compromised the case and terms of compromise
were reduced in writing vide Ex. C-1 i.e. joint application under Order 23
Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was filed. Certain parts of which are
relevant. I am quoting the same as here under :
5. That the plaintiffs have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five lakh) to the defendant towards full and final services
dues with M/s Makhija & Co. including retrenchment compensation,
back wages, leave encashment, earned wages, etc. etc. and the agreed
amount shall be paid to the defendant in the following manner:
------------
6. That after receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs 5 lakh (Rupees five lakh), the defendant ceased to be employee of M/s Makhija & Co. and defendant and his family members have agreed and undertaken not to initiate any kind of legal proceedings either against plaintiffs qua suit property or against M/s Makhija & Co. of any nature whatsoever.
8. The aforesaid undertaking makes it apparent that the amount which has been paid to the workman was inclusive of retrenchment compensation, back wages, leave encashment, earned wages etc. In the teeth of such a settlement which was anterior to the reference in my opinion the reference which has been referred to in a manner has to be answered against the workman for the reason that he had already settled his rights vide a settlement duly recorded before a competent Court - voluntarily and having received the benefit he cannot somersault and file the present petition. The same would tantamount to override the settlement already reached. Certain judgments have been relied upon by the respondent side LIR No.444/21 Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.6 of 8 which are as under :
a) Preetam Singh and Sons vs. Chotey Lal and others decided on October 25, 2010 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3594 of 1996 from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4795 : PLR (2011) 161 Del 12.
b) Automotive and Allied Industries (Private), Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others decided on December 16, 1993 from Hon'ble High of Bombay, 1993 SCC OnLine Bom 433.
c) Burroughs Wellcome (I) Ltd. Vs. Jagannath Namdeo Patel and others decided on 12-7-2005 in W.P. No. 668 of 2004 from Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 778.
d) M/s. Shree Surya Developers and Promoters vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and others decided on 09.02.2022 from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 2022 AIR (SC) 1031 : 2022 (5) SCC 736.
e) L. Ravi Vs. The Presiding Officer and others decided on July 25, 2013 in W.P. No. 2442 of 2008, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 2181 : (2013) 139 FLR 617.
f) Bahulayan V. and others vs. State of Kerala and others decided on September 24, 1999 in O.P. No. 16232/1997-G from High Court of Kerala, 1999 SCC OnLine Ker 673.
9. In the judgments titled " Preetam Singh and Sons vs. Chotey Lal and others" (supra) an ex-parte award was passed which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. In the said case the workman had taken full and final settlement amount. The earlier petition was dismissed. Second proceedings were initiated wherein award was passed by the Labour Court. The Hon'ble High Court has observed as here under:
Ordinarily, I would have remanded the case back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on merits, however, I find that the present is a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on account of fraud having been played by the respondent no.1 workman on the petitioner. The fraud is an ex facie fraud because in one case namely LCA 615/1992, it was clearly recorded that the workman has settled his case with the management in full and final settlement and therefore there is nothing left to adjudicate in the case which was dismissed as satisfied. In spite of this, the respondent no.1 pursued another case and in which ex parte Award was passed on 1.8.1994. This clearly amounts to abuse of the process LIR No.444/21 Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.7 of 8 of law and overreaching the court. An act of fraud can create no rights. A fraud vitiates everything and Award on the basis of the same is nullity-vide Section 44 of The Evidence Act, 1872. No rights are therefore created in favour of respondent no.1 workman by virtue of the Award dated 1.8.1994 in view of the settlement between the parties already recorded on 22.4.1993 in LCA 615/1992.
10. Amount of settlement was already taken by the workman before Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which was inclusive of retrenchment compensation, back wages, leave encashment, earned wages etc. and matter was disposed of. So much so in the present statement of claim there is nothing whatsoever stated with respect to the said litigation. Obviously the workman intended to hide the previous proceedings which also in a manner amounts to a fraud upon the Court. No relief can be granted to such a workman.
11. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the preliminary issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management. The claim of the workman is dismissed.
12. A copy of Award be sent to the competent Authority/appropriate Government i.e., Joint Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication which thereafter become enforceable u/Sec. 17A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Award is passed accordingly and claim stands disposed in above terms.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 25.09.2023.
(SUMIT DASS) RESIDING OFFICER:LABOUR COURT-IX ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT NEW DELHI LIR No.444/21 Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.8 of 8 LIR No.444/21 Sh. Achhey Lal vs. M/S Makhija & Co and others Page no.9 of 8