Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

40] The order dated 9th February 1990 makes it clear that Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989 was not withdrawn by the workmen without prejudice to their rights and contentions or for the purposes of agitating the matter further under the I.D. Act or the MRTU and PULP Act. The writ petition was 37 of 59 dss 38 JUDGMENT -LPA-144-2002.doc withdrawn by the workmen, because they were satisfied with the relief, limited though it may have been, which they secured in terms of the statement made by HAL and recorded by this Court in its order dated 9th February 1990. 41] This is neither a case of withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh proceedings based upon the same cause of action nor is this even a case of withdrawal simplicitor. The fact that the workmen were satisfied with and accepted the relief in terms of the statement made on behalf of HAL as recorded in the order dated 9 th February 1990 is evident from the subsequent conduct of the workmen/the Union in instituting no less than two contempt petitions seeking for enforcement of such reliefs. This is also evident from the fact that on the basis of this very statement made on behalf of HAL as recorded in the order dated 9 th February 1990, admittedly 80 out of 127 workmen secured regular employment with HAL, during pendency of the complaints under MRTU and PULP Act. No record was produced at any stage to demonstrate that such regular employment was accepted by these workmen without prejudice to their rights 38 of 59 dss 39 JUDGMENT -LPA-144-2002.doc and contentions of their pending complaints under the MRTU and PULP Act.

45] The aforesaid is evident from paragraph 14 of the judgment and order dated 2 nd March 2001, which reads as follows:

"The other facts is that on behalf of the petitioner, an affidavit was filed that the trainees were in fact offered employment in terms of the assurance made to this Court. I do not propose to enter into that arena as Contempt Petitions filed, are pending before this Court. Suffice it to say, that the grievance is that what was offered was not regular employment but temporary or for a short period. Many members of the petitioner therefore, did not apply by giving up the permanent job they had or that the offer made was for a temporary period they preferred not to join the temporary job least they lost their regular job considering their earlier experience. To my mind when the statement was made on behalf of the petitioner it was to offer the said trainees regular job and not temporary job. In the light of that though I allowing the petition, petitioner to consider the cases of those trainees either who had applied or who had applied but were offered temporary job and did not accept the same. To such persons

58] Applying the aforesaid principle as well, we are unable to agree with the distinction sought to be made by Ms Singh, in the present case. In Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (supra), the Apex Court Court noted that the application seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition had itself stated that the withdrawal was to pursue remedies under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973. Based upon this and other attendant circumstances, the Apex Court noted that the appellant never 48 of 59 dss 49 JUDGMENT -LPA-144-2002.doc intended to abandon its claim by withdrawing the suit and the language of the withdrawal order cannot be determinative without considering the background facts. 59] In the present case, the background facts and the attendant circumstances make it very clear that the workmen withdrew Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989 in view of the statement made on behalf of the HAL that they would be considered for regular employment on priority basis as and when regular vacancies arise. The withdrawal unlike in the case of Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (supra) was not to pursue remedies under the I.D. Act or the MRTU and PULP Act. Almost 80 out of 127 workmen, in fact availed the benefit of the statement made on behalf of HAL as recorded in the order dated 9th February 1990 disposing of Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989. At least the two contempt petitions were filed by the workmen to enforce such reliefs relatable to Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989.

66] The undisputed facts and circumstances which emanate from the orders made in Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989, the acceptance of regular employment by 80 out of 127 workmen involved in the dispute without any demur, the institution of at least two contempt petitions by the Union/workmen seeking to enforce the statement made on behalf of HAL as recorded in the order dated 9th February 1990 disposing of Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989, the orders made in the contempt petitions are sufficient to make out a case that the Union/workmen clearly acquiesced and accepted without any demur the reliefs which flowed from the statement made on 53 of 59 dss 54 JUDGMENT -LPA-144-2002.doc behalf of HAL as recorded in the order dated 9 th February 1990 disposing of Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989. Thereafter, whilst retaining the benefit of such relief, it was not open to the Union/workmen to insist upon further reliefs, even though, such further reliefs were given up by the Union/workmen, which is evident from their conduct in not only withdrawing Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989 in view of the statement made on behalf of HAL but also their subsequent conduct in accepting the benefits of regular employment with HAL without demur and in taking out proceedings to enforce relief in terms of the statement of HAL as recorded in the order dated 9th February 1990 disposing of Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989. Such undisputed conduct, in any case, attracts the principle of estoppel as well as the bar against approbation and reprobation. This is independent of the bar applying principles set out in Order 23 CPC as explained in Sarguja Transport (supra).