9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents 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. - W. P. No. 306 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 17-10-2012 - SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. For the petitioner : Mr. Pratik Dhar, Advocate Mr. R. Dutta, Advocate Ms. S. Mukherjee, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. P. S. Sengupta, Advocate Mr. S. Majumdar, Advocate The Court : The respondents nos. 2 to 4 have raised an objection about the maintainability of the present writ petition and as such the issue of maintainability is taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he calculation were, in fact, ignored. Thus, he seeks a Mandamus against the respondents nos. 2 to 4 to pay to him full compensation with full retirement benefits and to recalculate the payment. He has also prayed for a writ of Certiorari by quashing the Award impugned. This has given the respondents an occasion to question the maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that after the petitioner had accepted the money he cannot maintain the present writ petition and ask for any amount more than what has been paid to him. Moreover, the Mandamus which the petitioner is now seeking against the respondent no. 2 does not lie. The petitioner having accepted the money in full and final settlement of his claims cannot thereafter turn around and pray for the quashing of the Award. For Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, acceptance of three cheques cannot prejudice the case of the petitioner and any amount accepted pursuant to an Award without prejudice must not defeat his right to assail the same if there are good reasons justifying the same. According to Mr. Dhar the petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal filed under Article 136 of the Consittution of India by special leave could not be dismissed as not maintainable on the mere ground that the appellant had given an undertaking to the High Court on being so directed in order to keep the order of the High Court in abeyance for some time. The repeated submission of Mr. Dhar that the petitioner had accepted the cheques without prejudice has no factual foundation. It is true that in the letter dated January 25, 2012 the petitioner wrote that he had received the cheques without prejudice to his rights and contentions on the issue and he has also mentioned in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that he had received the same without prejudice to his other rights. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition he discloses that the respondent no. 2 by a letter dated January 19, 2012 had requested him to visit their office on January 25, 2012 to collect the sum as awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Sengupta had raised a point that the communication from the respondent no. 2 was not on its own volition but as a result of the petitioner s asking for money in terms of the Award. A close look at the letter of the respondent no. 2 which has been annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted them without prejudice he accepted that those payments were made in full and final settlement of his claims. It may be mentioned that in the letter of intimation, dated January 19, 2012 it was clearly and unambiguously mentioned that the compensation would be paid in full and final settlement of the petitioner s dues and on discharge of valid receipts towards that end by him. Thus, there was no scope for any confusion that the amount that was paid to him was not in full and final settlement of his dues and when he went to receive the payments he had full notice of the nature of payment that the respondent was making. The petitioner s assertion in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that he was made to sign the money receipts , vaguely suggesting a certain degree of coercion, is also not correct. Anybody making a payment has a right to insist on a receipt and what he would have to endorse on the receipts was also made known to him. Thus, there was no occasion to endorse without prejudice on the receipts. His subsequent stand must be taken to be an afterthought. In the case of Jayanta Nath Majumdar Vs.- State of West Bengal and others, reported in 1997(1) CHN 137, a Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to the vendee for the loss of his property. The majority judgement held that it was for this reason that the well settled principles did not apply to a pre-emption decree. But in this case the petitioner had definitely accepted the benefit under the Award. In the case of P. R. Deshpande (Supra) High Court had directed the appellant to file an undertaking before court that he would vacate the premises within six months. The three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that by directing a party to give an undertaking no court can scuttle or foreclose a statutory remedy of appeal, much less a constitutional remedy. In the present case the acceptance of his dues in full and final settlement of the claim was not pursuant to any direction by the labour court and in this vital aspect the present case differs from the one relied on by the petitioner. Again, the case of Aurohill Global Commidities Ltd. (Supra) is not factually applicable to the present one. The petitioner not having accepted the money without prejudice cannot draw on the principle decided therein. Mr. Sengupta submits that if the petitioner had not approached the concerned respondents then they themselves might ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the other. (Ref. Spencer Bower and Turner The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation 3ed Edition, Indian Reprint, Calcutta 1994 pp. 313-314) The same authors included conduct of litigants within the four fields to which the doctrine may be applied. Courts also have persistently applied this doctrine to this area. The whole thing boils down to whether a person having reaped the benefit out of a judgement to the litigation can still question the validity of the same. In re Lart. Wilkinson Vs.- Blades., reported in 1896(2) Chancery 788 Chitty J. had held that a person who is fully cognizant of the proceedings and who stands by and deliberately takes the benefit of a decision on the construction of a will under which a particular fund is distributed, is estopped by his conduct from reopening any of the questions covered by the former judgement by means of a fresh action. Although this judgement was delivered in the context of the construction of a will the principle deducible therefrom is of universal application. A litigant who has taken the benefit either in whole or in part of a decision of an inferior tribunal which has gone in his favour is precluded from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case where the petitioner by his consistent and unequivocal conduct had given out to the respondent company that he was not willing to accept the Award of the trial Court. 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. Judicial decisions at times expressed some misgivings about the application of such technical doctrine like estoppel, res judicata etc. to industrial adjudications. The controversy has now been set at rest. After exhaustively discussing different judgements the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs.- Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 3229 applied the principle to industrial adjudication having regard to the reference made by the appropriate Government. Thus there is no bar in applying these principles to the facts of the present case. Another aspect of the case requires to be highlighted. The petitioner in the writ petition has prayed for a writ of Mandamus upon the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
