Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W. P. No.38466/2013 (L-TER) BETWEEN
M/S TAJ RESIDENCY (NOW KNOWN AS M/S VIVANTA BY TAJ) 41/3, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR-HR MRS FELICITA SHANTHY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH.R.-ADV FOR SRI. S.N. MURTHY ASSTS.-ADVs)
AND
SRI. SADIQUE BASHA S/O SRI. KAMRUDDIN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.80/1, M.MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT RAGHUPATHI BUILDING R.S.PALYA, M.S.NAGAR BANGALORE-560033.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.Y.S.SATISH CHANDRA-ADV FOR SRI. T.NARAYANASWAMY-ADV)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 03.12.2012 IN I.D.NO.39/2006 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. LABOUT COURT, BANGALORE AT ANNX-R TO THE W.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner employer is before this Court calling in question the order passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru dated 03.12.2012 in I.D. No.39/2006.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the parties i.e. the employer and workman have reached an amicable resolution of the pending dispute and that the terms of settlement are evidenced by the Joint Memo. The respective counsels and the parties have affixed their hands to this Joint Memo. Representative of the employer and workman are before this Court and identified by their respective counsels. The terms of the Joint Memo are as follows:-
“JOINT MEMO Short Recital of the Case
Whereas the respondent was dismissed on 20.01.2006 after holding domestic enquiry regarding unauthorized absence and the respondent raised dispute in I.D. No.39/2006 questioning the dismissal. The domestic enquiry was considered as
3 preliminary issue and by order dated 03.08.2009 the court held enquiry to be fair and proper;
And whereas, after hearing the parties, the Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore passed an Award dated 03.12.2012 reinstating the respondent with continuity of service and 50% back-wages;
And Whereas, the petitioner challenged the correctness of the award before this Hon’ble Court in the above writ petition;
And Whereas, during the pendency of the above writ petition, the parties, with a view to settle the dispute out of court, discussed the issues arising out of the writ petition at length with the assistance of respective advocates, and after extensive discussions, have arrived at an amicable settlement on the following terms:
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
“01. The petitioner has, on this day paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the respondent by two Account Payee Cheques as detailed below in full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent including his claims to towards ex-gratia payment, bonus, leave wages, gratuity, etc. Both the cheques are drawn in favour of the Respondent.
a) Ex-gratia for the years from 2006 to 2017: Rs.581496/- b) Leave wages from 2006 to 2017: Rs.65751/- c) Bonus for the years 2006 to 2017: Rs.143982/- d) Gratuity: Rs.208771/-
Total Rs.10,00,000/- e) An amount of Rs.791229/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred & Twenty Nine only) is paid by Cheque bearing No.913423 dated 06.03.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank, Kasturba Road Branch, Bangalore towards ex-gratia, leave wages and bonus; f) An amount of Rs.208771/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred & Seventy One only) is paid by Cheque bearing No.913422 dated 06.03.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank, Kasturba Road Branch, Bangalore towards gratuity.
The respondent workman acknowledges receipt of the two cheques detailed in clause (1) above in full and final settlement of all his claims including ex- gratia, bonus, leave, wages, gratuity, etc.
It is agreed between the parties that this settlement terminates the jural relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner management and the respondent workman.
It is further agreed by both the parties that the respondent workman shall have no more claims whatsoever against the petitioner management,
5 either monetary or otherwise in respect of his employment or non-employment.
It is further agreed by both the parties that in view of this settlement, the respondent workman shall not be entitled to reinstatement, reemployment or fresh employment in the petitioner hotel or any of its sister concerns.
The respondent workman humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the respondent to spread the amount of Rs.7,91,229 paid towards ex-gratia, leave wages and bonus as mentioned in Clause 1 above from 20.01.2006 till 06.03.2017 to enable the respondent to take the benefit of relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act and/or any other provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Motors Vs. Ameerjan reported in 1984 (2) LLJ 22 or =1985 I SCC 118.
Both the parties humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to substitute this joint memo in place of the Award dated 03.12.2012 in I.D. No.39/2006 passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore at Annexure ‘R’ and dispose of the
6 above writ petition in terms of this joint memo, in the interest of justice.
Signed by both the parties on the 6th day of MARCH 2017 at Bangalore.”
Hence, writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo and as hereinabove noted.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Chs