2012 (12) TMI 31 - HC - Companies Law

Challenging the Award - retirement on superannuation towards compensation along with all due retirement benefits - Held that - The majority judgement had accepted the principle that a person who takes a benefit under an order de hors the claim on merits cannot repudiate that part of the order which is detrimental to him because the order is to take effect in its entirety. In the present case the conduct of the petitioner is very significant. The company has responded to his letter and made the payment which the petitioner had accepted in full and final settlement of his dues. From his conduct it cannot also be inferred that he ever considered the Award not to be binding on him. On the contrary his conduct was such which made the company alter its position to its detriment as he had accepted the amount in full and final satisfaction of the sum awarded. This is a case in which the equitable principle of estoppel precludes the writ petitioner from challenging the Award. The petitioner in the writ petition has prayed for a writ of Mandamus upon the respondents numbers 2 to 4 to pay to the petitioner full compensation in lieu of 50 per cent of the wages with full retirement benefit is not maintainable as the employer, could not be said to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of challenging an order of termination of service of its employees. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside of the Award after taking the benefit of it is not allowed as he can never now ask for an order setting aside of the Award which has been satisfied by the payment received by him. Thus it will be inequitable to admit the writ petition challenging the Award the benefit of which has already been taken by the petitioner in full and final satisfaction of the dues.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Acceptance of compensation and its implications on the right to challenge the Award.
3. Application of the doctrine of estoppel and waiver.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of Mandamus against the respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner challenged an Award dated November 25, 2011, passed by the Eighth Industrial Tribunal, which was published by the Government of West Bengal on December 27, 2011. The petitioner accepted three cheques from the respondent in terms of the Award but later filed a writ petition seeking recalculation of his dues, claiming several factors like promotion, yearly increments, and arrears were ignored. The respondents argued that the petitioner, having accepted the compensation as "full and final settlement," cannot maintain the writ petition.

2. Acceptance of compensation and its implications on the right to challenge the Award:
The petitioner contended that accepting the cheques "without prejudice" should not affect his right to challenge the Award. He relied on several cases, including Aurohill Global Commodities Limited vs. Maharashtra STC Limited and Bhau Ram vs. Baij Nath Singh, to support his claim. However, the court found that the petitioner did not accept the cheques "without prejudice" as claimed. The receipts indicated that the payments were made in full and final settlement of his dues. The principle of estoppel was applied, as the petitioner induced the respondents to believe that the payment would settle the dispute, thereby altering their position to their detriment.

3. Application of the doctrine of estoppel and waiver:
The court emphasized that the petitioner, by accepting the compensation in full and final settlement, waived his right to challenge the Award. The doctrine of estoppel was invoked, preventing the petitioner from altering his stand to the detriment of the respondents. The court cited several judgments, including Jayanta Nath Majumdar vs. State of West Bengal and others, and Meng Leong Development Pte Ltd. vs. Jip Hong Trading Co Pte Ltd., to illustrate that a litigant who takes the benefit of a decision cannot subsequently challenge its validity.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of Mandamus against the respondents:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents to pay full compensation and recalculate his dues. However, the court noted that a writ against the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (CESC) does not lie unless it acts in discharge of its statutory duties. Citing cases like Raghuraj Singh and Company (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CESC Limited and others, and Mithai Lal Passi vs. CESC Limited and others, the court held that the CESC is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution for challenging an order of termination of service. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for a Mandamus was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the preliminary objection regarding its maintainability. The petitioner, having accepted the compensation in full and final settlement, was estopped from challenging the Award. The court emphasized that it would be inequitable to allow the petitioner to benefit from the Award and simultaneously challenge it. The petition was dismissed without calling for an affidavit, and the allegations were deemed to have been denied by the respondents. There was no order as to costs, and urgent photostat certified copies of the order were allowed subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

← Previous Next →