CWP 20102 2017 Paper Book

IN THE ANDCIVIL
HIGH
HARYANA
Pvt WRIT Formerly
LtdVersus
PETITION
AT FOR known
STATES
CHANDIGARH
THENO 0 asOOF
Riceland
Ms TRLHONBLE
Ltd
Riceland
Ltd COURT
hUB28H Petitioner
Ms 2017
Tilda
PUNJAB
2 I
v Presiding Officer Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court Panipat
83
311
and others
M V
Respondents
INDEX
s
N0 DATE PAGES
M 6
eiirt I
A fee
UrgentForm 230817
1 List of dates and events
230817 719
2 Civil Writ Petition 230817 1057 5a 4
3 Affidavit
I
3 3
4 230817 5859
34
A
AnnexureP1 120417 6063

Order V
5 Annexure P2 Impugned 120417 6466 3
Order
6 Annexure 133 Statement
V
081113 67
Annexure P4 081113 6869
Order
Annexure P5 Written 251115 7093 1640
Statement on behalf of the
petitioner management
9 Annexure P6 080116 9497 343
Rep1ication
10 Annexure 13 Order 080116 98 2 5 X
11 Annexure P8 Colly 141111 99113

ll
Affidavit Statement
12 Annexure P9 Application 260816 114116 2e
13 Annexure P10 Reply 071016 1171 19 1 glt
14 Annexure P11
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE
160816 120124 4 90
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Application
15 Annexure P12 Reply 071016 125127 cgt
16 Annexure P13 Judgment 260213 128154 1307
17 P14
Annexure Order 281113 155
4
18 Annexure P15 Tripartite 260808 156 170
Settlement
19 Annexure 0
P16 Claim 171 1
20 Annexure P17 Chart 172173 1
I
Vernacular Annexures
21 Annexure P3 Statement 081113 174 1 0
22 Annexure P4 Order 081113 175176 3 4
25 Annexure P8 Co11y 141111 177187 90

Afdavit Statement
26 Annexure P14 281113 188
2
Order 1
27 Annexure
1
P15 Tripartite 260808 189192

I
Settlement
28 Resolution 240913 193
29 Power of Attorney 230817 194 3

30 Total 11303 17era
Note
1 The questions of law involved in the present writ
petitionare mentioned in para No 6 at page N052 3355
2 Statutes Act Rules 1 Constitution of India
ii Industrial DisputesAct 1947
2
Similar Writ Nil
No caveat petitionhasbeen received by the petitioner
Chandigarh Mittal
Dated 23082017
Counsel for the petitioner
9911
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
g
pecaai
Punjab
umuzs 1
CHANDIGARH PresidingOfficer
llduyn and
IN others
TRLHONBLE
Riceland
Ms THE Ltd AND
Riceland
Ltd Pvtr WRIT
CIVIL
Court
HIGH
HARYANA
IndustrialFee
COURT
7
f LtdRs Formerly
Versus CHANDIGARH
PETITION
ATlFOR THE fknownas
N05 JD
Respcndents
Panipat
Tilda
s 2017
OFMPetitioner
STATESCourt PUNJAB
of
1
I 4
Certfied Papa
1Z5
tha
1
vam5a
Chandigarh Alok Mittal
Anil Kumar Pandey
Dated 23082017 Advocate
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE Counsel for the petitioner
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0

220L of 2017
Ms TRL Pvt Formerly known as

Riceland Ltd Ms Tilda
Riceland Ltd Ltd
Petitioner
Versus
2
Presiding Officer Industrial Court Panipat
and others
Respondents
CERTIFICATE
It is certied that
theundersignedis ling the Civil Writ
Petition titled as Ms TRL Reiceland Pvt Ltd Versus Presiding
Officer Industrial TribunalcumLaVbourCourt Panipat and
others in this Honble Court and annexures applicationetc led
before Bench have been annexed with the accompany

theHonble
CWP
Chandigarh Mittal
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
1
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO of 2017

90
M s Basic India Limited
Stateof Haryanaand others
260808 The said

proceedings
The receipt Conciliation
Respondents
4 Companies
Management proceedingsDemand
is a Companyregistered
Disputs
Officer
Respondents
Notice
On
under LIST
October were
OF
of
Petitioner
the
Section
2007the before
DATES
2 held
KVersus
said
had the
AND
ofActDemand
1956 a
Industrial
EVENTS
Conciliation
issued Notice was Act on
Conciliation
Petitioner
Karnal
nally
culminated into a VoluntaryRetirement Scheme which
was
incorporatedinto a Tripartite Settlement before
Labour Cum Conciliation Officer on August 26
2008 Annexure P15
In the said Scheme introduce

response to
by the
Company203 employees including the 107
Respondentsexcept Sukhdev Singh who are a party
to the present industrial dispute voluntarilyapplied
for under the said Scheme and received all their dues
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
in full and nal
A
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH settlement Thereafter the
7
Respondents have themselves led their PF and
Pension Form and withdrawn the amount of the same
Further the Respondents have also availed tax
benets on the payment received under the said VRS
The said 203 employees including the 108
Respondentswere paid their respectiveamounts
various dates The

thesaidScheme on
said
accepted their paymentswhich were paid through
cheques and subsequentlyencashed by them and
thereafter depositedthe said money in their respective
bank accounts without any protest by them
Out of 203 employees who accepted VRS 126
employeesfiled a writ petition beforePunjab and
Haryana High Court in Year 2009 During the
pendency of the case Labour departmentled their
written statement giving details to Tripartite

related
Settlement under section 123 of ID act for VRS
Labour departmentin their reply stated that the said
Settlement was executed voluntarily and no coercion
or
undue inuence was exercised while optingfor and
signing the said Settlement which is in accordance
with provisionsof the Industrial Disputes Act 19472
Further regardingthe alleged conditional settlement
which is the very basis of this writ petition led by
respondents the Written Statement led by Labour
departmentstates that the letter dated August 22
2008 was simply a proposal put forth by the
petitioners to the management it by no stretch of

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
imaginationmay be styledas a settlement Statement
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
260213 On
A
Voluntary
produced
proceeding
as 26022013
Claimants
further
claried
the inor
retrenchment before
duly
Settlement
clarifies
Retirement
the Honble
at reply
accepted
that
discussed
dated August
Noin Punjab
the Conciliation
Scheme
that which
Establishment
such
the
there
the 26 and
officer
course
was
document
2008
benets Haryana
no was High
was
Itclosureever
vrasforrnu1ated or
of conciliation
that
under also
the
3
Court disposed of the writ petition led by the said
employeesAnnexure P13
The said 108 Respondentschallengedthe VRS after
about ve years in the year 2013 by raising an
industrial dispute through their General Charter of
Demand under Section 2 k before the DLC Panipat

which was duly being considered by the Conciliation
Ofcer
However on November 8 2013 counsel for the
Respondentemployeesrecorded his statement before
the office of the DLC Panipat which is annexed as
Annexure P3 That as the Conciliation proceedings
had continued beyond 90 days he therefore
exercising his legal right to approach the Honble
Industrial TribunalCum Labour Court Panipat
directly However it is pertinentto note that there is
no
such legal provisionthat permits the Respondents
to raise a Charter of Demand directly before the
Industrial Tribunal without obtaining a Reference

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Order under Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct
4
1947 In view of these facts and circumstances the
allegeddispute led on behalf of the Claimants directly
before the Honble Labour Court is not
maintainable under the provisionsof the law Relevant
Order dated November 8 2013 is also annexed

herewith as Annexure P4
That Advocate forthe Respondent

workmen
the proceedingsbefore the LearnedIndustrial Tribunal
Cum Labour Court Panipat on November 222013

However till October 9 2015 ie for a period of
approximatelytwo years he did not provide the
Managementa copy of the Statement of Claim as also
the documents in support of the Claim In fact the

Management on the hearing dated September 12
2014 was constrained to le an under
Rule 10 B 1 to 3 of the Industrial DisputesPunjab
Rules 1958 for supply of the documents Annexures
which were repeatedly mentioned in the Claim
Statement The Advocate of the Claimant provided

the
relevant documents Annexures to the Management
only on October 9 2015 despite numerous
instructions the Court therebywastingvaluable
judicial time and thatof the Management also

This
clearlyestablishes that the have no legal
valid or tenable case in their support in these
proceedings challenging the VRS which was
formulated into a legal valid and bindingSettlement
August 26 2008 under the provisions of the
Industrial DisputesAct 1947 and thereforeought to

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE have been summarilydismissed It is also pertinentto
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
5
note that in the aforesaid Applicationdated September
12 2014 a specic plea was also taken to direct the
Respondentsto deposit the amount which they had
acceptedwithout any demur It is important to note
that the said Application was led

eiihbefore the
receiptof the completeStatement of Clairn
Thereafter the Written Statement was duly led on
behalf of the Petitioners on November 25 2015 The

same as
is annexed herewith P5 It is
pertinentto note that Petitioners raised the that
no
Reference Order has been made by the appropriate
governmentin this matter and in these circumstances
the allegedproceedingsare nonest and void ab initio
Petitioners also made a specic plea for the
amount of VRS duly accepted by the Respondent

before proceedingin the matter before the Labour
Court was once again reiterated in the Written
Statement itself The Respondents led their
RejoinderReplicationto the said Written Statement on
January 8 2016 and the same is annexed herewith as

Annexure P6
It is noteworthy to mention that the claim forms
submitted on
behalf of in Industrial
were
materiallyand signicantly
those submitted in the Honble High Court in year
2009 This also clearly establishes that the
Respondentshave no legal valid or case in
their support in these proceedingschallengingthe VRS
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
which was formulated into a legal valid and binding
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
V
080116 management
imaginary
Punjab
provisions
comparison
Respondents
for
tillsingle
before
The
a
even
which
exercise
Court
Tribunal
of
encashment
under Punjab
the
untenable
annexed
Settlement
led
VRS now
Claim to Haryana
clearly
compensation
on
age
mentioned
has
ThereafterSection
and in
component
herewith
and
without
of January
extort
25FF
and
Year
of
Statement
Court
dated
of
of
have
The
the
those
signicant including
as
when
the HaryanaHigh
High
indicates
Casual
anyAnnexure
and
claim IDclaim
Industrial
of
been
in
2015
Claims
led
led
for Act before
before
superannuation
August
respondents
more
8Court
forms
basis misconceived
doing
by
Leaves
the Disputes
sum
materialP17
balance
the
All
led
in
the
2016
26 in
led
baseCourt
year
claim
these
and before
monetary
Respondents
salary
beforeCompensation
difference
This
Industrial
years
of
had
the
2008
shing Le
heads
monies
Honble
led
in
of
Actandillegal
statement
2009
Issues
theyear
under
58
service
is roving
were
same
terms
Not High
were
even
not
that
Industrial
and
Tribunal
1947
the
Honble
seeks
2009
from is
ieis
writ
and
yearstheA
6
framed Annexure P7
One of the workmen Mr LakhwinderSingh

WW2 led hisAfdavitStatement evidence in
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
chief and with the same annexed a Special Power of
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
7
Attorney as Exhibit WW2B is annexed herewith as
AnnexureP8 Cally
2608 16 The same was by the

challenged Petitioner Management
by ling an Applicationdated August 26 2016 which is
aninexed herewith as Annexure P9 on the premised
well settled principles of evidence that a Power of
not have the

Attorney Holder does right to on
p
behalf of the Claimant
071016 A Reply dated October 7 2016 which is annexed
herewith as P10 to the said Applicationwas
led on behalf of the Respondents
Thereafter on
hearingthe parties vide impugned
Order dated April 12 2017 Annexure P2 the Learned
Labour Court erred in rejectingthe contentions of the
Petitioner Managementand further erred in holding
that the present Application was nothing but an abuse
of process of law and a delaying tactic The Learned
Labour Court also overlooked the Judgments of the
apex Court relied upon by the Petitioner

which were absolutelyrelevant and to the point
260816 In view of the fact that despite raising the plea with
regard to deposit of the principal amount
by the Respondentsunder the Voluntary Retirement

A
Scheme with the Managementon various occasions the
Honble Court failed to determine the said issue or treat
the same as a preliminary

issue In the circumstances
the Petitioner was also constrained to le anApplication

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE dated August 26 2016 which is annexed herewith as
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
071016 Reply to the aforesaid
deposit
forthe directing
principal behalf as
of
led respondents
Con
Annexure
Claimants
mentioned to
above
Pl1 was
amount
the received
8
the Respondents
on October 7 2016 which is annexed
The Learned Labour Court failed to appreciatethat in
the Claim Statement there is a claim for compensation
soughtunder Section 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes

Act
pertinent to refer that Claimants earlier also led a
Complaint before the Deputy Labour
Panipat againstthe Management for violation of
Sections 25 N and 25 O with Sections 32 and 34 of the
Industrial Disputes Act After hearing arguments from
both the parties the Learned Authoritywas pleasedto
dismiss the Complaintand did not nd any merit in the
said Complaint Annexure P14
Furthermore the Claim Statement led by the
Respondentsalsoraises a claim for VRS compensation

8
for balance years of service ie till the age of
superannuationie 58 years which too primafacie is
imaginary without any basis misconceived
and untenable In this regard it is also pertinentto
note that the claims demands as set out in the Writ
Petition led by the Respondentsbefore this Honble
Court prior to the present proceedingsare similar to
those in the proceedingsbefore the Learned Labour

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Court Although same
thethe
However demands monetary
is not inlegally terms it in
tenable is
7
the proceedingsbefore the Labour Court reect a huge
divergence and discrepancy in the claims and
contentions To illustrate in the case of Pyare Lal
Son of Shri Surat Ram the difference of claim amount
shown in the Writ before

Petition the Honble High
V
Court was Rs 161452 Whereas his
the Learned Labour Court inated to an amount of
Rs702227 Similarly in case of Ral Dhari Son of
Shri Karta Ram the difference of claim amount shown
in Writ Petition was Rs 164342 whereas his claim
before the LearnedLabour Court was an amount of
Rs736784 Hence the Claim led by the
Respondentsbefore the Learned Labour court is false
fabricated and clearly an afterthoughtA copy of the
sampleclaim led by the claimants before the Honble
High Court and the claim for the same led
before the Honble Tribunal is enclosed

herewith to
illustrate the intentions and after thoughton
the part of the respondentsas Annexure P16
Hence the present Civil Writ petition
llr
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
1O V
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
IIONBLE
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO 02 of 2017
Ms Rficeland Pvt Ltd Formerly

Riceland
Ltd Ltd having its office at 42nd
Gurgaon its Head HR 1Ir Razhiiil

Vaishso Sh SC Vaish agedabout 43 years
Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Ofcer Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court
PanipatHaryana
The State of Haryana through the Principal Secretary
Ministry of Labour Haryana Room No 403 4th Floor New

SecretariatSector 17 Haryana Chandigarh
Mr PyareLal son of Mr Surat Ram VillageBairaniiPLO
Samaria Bahu District Karnal
Mr Lakhwinder Singh son of Mr Harbhajan Singh VPO

Samaria Bahu District Karnal
Mr Rajinder Kumar son of Mr Dhani Ram H No 171 A
Gali No 28 Vikash Colony Meerut Road Karnal
Mr Subhash Chand son of Mr PyareLal VillageBarani PO
Samaria Bahu District Karnal Haryana PF 193
Mr Pala Ram son of Mr Mam Raj VPO Samaria Bahu
District Karnal Haryana

tarie
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
ii
8 Mr Pardeep Kumar son of Mr Sardari Lal VPO Samaria
Bahu District Karnal
9 Mr Tehal Singh son of Mr Surjit Singh VPO Sarnana Bahu
District Karnal
10 Mr IlarjinderSingh son of Mr Havela Sin slarhahta

11 Mr Balwan son of Mr Karta Ram VPO Samaria Bahu

District Karnal Haryana
12 Jaswant of Mr
Mr Singh son Vir SinghVPOSamaria
13 Mr Roshan Lal son of Mr Shankar Lal VillageJhirbari PO
Palwal District Kurukshetra
14 Mr Jeeta Ram son of Mr Khura Ram Village Jhirbari PO
Palwal
Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra Haryana
15 Mr Dharam Pal son of Mr Bir Singh Village Jhirbari PO

Palwal
Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra
16 Mr Dharam Pal son of Mr Shankar Village Jhirbari PO
Palwal
Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra
17 Mr Isham Singh son of Mr Babu Ram VillageJhirbari PO
Palwal Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Mr
EarlySurinder
Colony Rajo
Colony
VArun
Office Pal
Thanesar
Samastipur
Nilokheri
Singh
Nath ofSaudagar Singh
Rajput
Haryana
Singh
HVillage
charid
Village Near
Kariyan
Tehsil
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Post
Mr
Area
Palwal
Bahu Devi
Pawan
Karam
Aman
District
Kurukshetra
Mr
Sham Sulekh
Tarlok
Isham
Short
District
Tehsil
Karnal
Jagah Jhansa
Nilokheri
RDevi
Jha
Kumar
am
Chand
Kumarson
son
Karnal
Jhansa
wife
Birdie son
son
son
son
son
District son
PO
of
of
of
District
District
Thanesar of
of
Bihar
of
Road Mr
Karnal
ofMr
of
Road Mr
Mr
Mr
Karnal
Mr
Mr Bhul
Mulak
Bir
Mr
Hans
District
District
PalwalMahender
Pala
Shankar
Kishan
Hari Nar
Tehsil VPO
House
VPO
Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra
RamKurukshetra
Ram
Singh
Raj
Raj Ward
Jha
Lal Samaria
Samaria
NoNo
VPOVPO
Mohalla
VPO
No7 3039451
sarhaha
12
Station
Prem
Amin
Jhirbari PO
Jhirbari
Bahu
District Karnal
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Mr 85 85 85 85
V
39 lVlr
Mr
Mr
Mr
PO
Mani Ranbhik
Ganga
Haibatpur
Saroj
Amarjit
Ajit
Haryana
Isham
District
Palwal
Jai Teh
Leela
Hari
Palwal
Bahu Palwal
Balwant
Mohalla
Majra District
PO
Teh
Ram
LadwaPO Singh
son
POson
son
Kurukshetra
Karnal
Ram Umri
Teh
Taraori
Narain
RamRam
Singh
Bala Umri Nadana
son
son
son
son
District
Mr
District
Karnal
Singh of
wife
Teh son
Tehsil
Singhof son
of
Mr
of
Mr
District
Teh
ofof of
Kurukshetra
son
Bal
of
MrManglu
Late
MrMr
Mr
MrHajara
of
Mr
Kurukshetra
ofDistrict
of Bhupti
Ram
Mr
Bishan
Teh Kurukshetra
Marisa
Marisa
Mr
Nilokheri
District Haryana
Singh
Nilokheri
Siria
Dharam
Kurukshetra
Bahadur H Village
VillageSamani
Haryana
VPO
No
District
Ram
Dev
Ram Pritam
Ram
Ram VPOVillage
Haryana
Karnal
Ward
D
Pal Haryana
Village
Village
Sainana
VPO
2040
istrict
Samani
Singh Samani
Village
PO
Ror
Sector
No5
AminSamaria
Dheru
Teh
PO
Bahu3 3
Karnal
85 District Kurukshetra
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 Majra
Haryana
Guljar
Ajit 85
Narain
Singh
Parkashson
Kurukshetra
Hansraj
Ramji
Ramdev85
Singh
Mohammad
Haryana
Village
VillageAnjanthli
Village
Samani
Village Rajiv
Colony
PO
Mr
District
Mr
Mr
Teh
Tehsil
Palwa
KarnalMem
Som
Hans
District Haryana
Dharam
Hukam
Jai
Dharam
Teh
Bairsal
Indri son
Karnal
Karnal
Kaithal
Teh
Nilokheri
Jaspal
Umri
Singh
Raj Pal
Singh
Khan son
son
District
PO
ofson
son
son
son
Districtson
Mrson
son
District
Road
Chand
Pal Mr
Karnal
ofof
Indri
of Mr
of
MrMr
Mr
Mr
Karnal
of
of Mr
MrMr
Jaan
District
of
Karnal
Palwalof Ram
Bhulla
Mann VPO
Bhartu
Teh
Gandilu
Karnal
Shiv Samaria
JaanMohammad
Ram
Lal VPO HSamaria
District
Ram
Ram
VPO
Charan Ram Samana
VPO
No
VPO Bakipur
PO
District
Kalal
Kurukshetra
Bahu Bairsal
Jattairi
45Bahu MV
PO Seedpur Teh Nilokheri District Karnal h
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 Mr
Arjheri
Hospital
Mrs 1Mahabir
Shyam
Taraori
Ravinder
Arjheri
Guru son of
Nilokheri
Gazipur
son
sonson
son
son
son
sonNilokheri
son Singh Village
VillageSamaria
Village
Village Ram
VillageTakhana
Village
Village Jyoti
DyalpurRaypur
Fefra
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
Mr
PO
Mr
PO
Mrs
Mr
PO
Mr Mam
Ram
Som
Reshma
Rudi
District
Gurukul
Maida Kurukshetra
Area
Satish
Mulla
Sulan
Kaiai
KarnalTeh
District
District
District
Bairsal Devi
Ram
Kumar
Devi
NathDevi
Singh
Chand
Majra
Singh
Lal Teh
Kurukshetra
District
Tehsil
Karnal
Widowwidow
Mr
widow
of
of
Indri Mr
ofMr
ofMr
Uttar
Karnal
of
ofofMr
of
Mr
of
Mr Mr
District
Jhandu
Mr Mani
Pradesh
Des
District
Inder
Baddu
Lakhi
ThariesarRulaKarnal
District
SohanKarnal
Nanak
Kehar
District
Pala
Naresh
Ram
Ram
Ram
Chand
RajLal Karnal
VPO
Chand
Ram
SinghKumar VPO
Samaria
Plot
Takhana
Barana 15
Nagar PO
PO
PO
Bahu
No2
Sar
Unispur
Bahu
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal
2 63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73 Kamlesh
Samaria
Rajiv
Shyam
Mange
Colony
Colony
Nilokheri
ofGupta
Chaudhry
Devi
Thanesher
Kumar Mohalla Haryana
Rajbir
Rajpal
Taraori
Raj Singh
Gupta
HSharma
CollegeColony
Purushotain2078
VillageBhagwan
Hospital
No4 1
Ni1olltheri
Nagar
Area
Mr
Mrs
New
Mr
PO
Mr Ram
Jattan
Mr Pawan
Kirmich
resident
District Karnal
VinodRoad
Krishan
Sushil
District
Kurukshetra
Taraori
Bahu
Dhari son
son
Tehsil son
District son
Districtson
of
District
Karnal
Sharma
Kumar
Ram
Lal
Kumar
Lal District
sonof
Pipli son
son
widowMr Mr
of
Mr
of
MrMr
Karta
Mr
Mr
Bansi
Mr
Des
Mr
DistrictKurukshetra
Kurukshetra
ofKurukshetra
of
of
Karnal
of
Nilokheri
Sharma
Karnal
Mrof
District
Balson
Amar
MamJanardhan
District
Ram HNoVillage
No
No
Kurukshetra
of
Kishan
Lal Karnal
Chand Mr HSadhu
Tehsil
Dass
84
35 Sector
Garhi
Takhana
VPO
Dass VPO
Dyalpur
767
Ram3 I6
NagarColony Pipli District Kurukshetra

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85 Mittho
PO Manoj
Jug Devi
JagjeetSinghwife
Kurukshetra86
Singh
Parshad
son
son
son
son
son
son
son 85
Nilokheri
Haryana Kurukshetra
son
Bhagat
son
Mahipal
Arjan
SinghDhiman Pradesh
Village
Singh
viiiageHaryana
Takhana
Rajbar Mr85
Rajput
Village
1605
Haryana
son
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
Mr
PO
Mr
Samaria
Mrs
Sector
Mr
Bahu
Kaithi
Bahu Sukhdev
Mahender
Ram
District
Lal PO
Brahma
TaraoriPO
Surinder
Shiv
Arnar
Janeshwar
Tulsi
District
District
Palwa1Teh
Jhirbari 3 Bahu
VPO Shisvar
Tehsil
Kumar
Kumar
Nath
Chander
Devi son
Samaria
Karnal
Palwal
Karnal
Pal
Singh
Singh District
District
widow MrKarnal
Kurukshetra
of Teh Mr
of
oflVIr
of
Kalanof
of
Laddiof
Bahu Mr
Atma
Late
ofMr
Mr
of MrLate
lula
District Mr
District
Balbirof
Mr
District Mr
Mr
District
of
Narain
Mulak
Ram H Ram
Uttar
SamvaruNo
Karnal
Karnal
Chaman
Narain
VPO
Kurukshetra
Ram
Balia
Ram
Singh
Raj VPOLal
Jhirbari
No
Amin
124
VPO
Diya Samaria
Samaria
SinghTeh
ofVPO
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Mohalla Pipli District Kurukshetra
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97 Mr
ColonyNarinder
Yogdhyan
Rajinder
Jagdish
Narain
Shishvar
Rajbar
Thanser
Haryana
son
Jharisa
son
Shyam
Surjan Haryana
Shyam
Haryana
Kurukshetra
Shah
Vijay
Kurukshetra
Surjan
Singh
Rajbar
Village
Village Kirmach
Haryana
Mahmedpur
No5Village
Haryana
Village
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
PO
Mr
Mr
Mr Sudersan
Ram
Har
Pawan
Rameshwar
Samaria
ThanserBasant
District
Jai
District
Mr
No5
Mathana
Kalan
4962 5PO
TikriKarnal
Chuna
Dharam
Krishan
Karnal
Model
Karnal
Bilas
Pal
Bahu Town
son
son
District
Teh
Teh
Kumar
Pal
Lal son
son
son
son
ofof
District
Chand
Kumar
Shahbad
Bhatti
Vihar son
Karnal
of
ofMr
of
of
Mrson
son
Mr
Mrson
Mr
Mr
of
DistrictRam
Ram
Mr
District
Kurukshetra
Dass District
of
District
KarnalRuda
of
of Mr
Dilber
Mr
Mr
Jagat
Balia
Road VPO
Uttar
Saran
Ram VPO
H PO
District
Lal
RamRattan
Hukam
Lal
Singh VPO No Samaria
Sarnaria
Pradesh
Kurukshetra
Samaria
H
Singh
Chand
46651
Barani HKaithi
Ram
VPO
No
Teh
PO
18
Gali
Bahu
Bahu
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Barani PO Samaria Bahu District Karnal Haryana
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108 Mr Ram
Palwal
Joginder
Satpal
Nilokheri
Nagar
Anju
Colony
Bhagwan
Parkash
RajinderGupta 85
Gaghora
Haryana Nilokheri
Jagan
Mangal
Agency
Singh Champaran
VillageShadipur
Sharma
Village
No Karnal
VillageBetia
Daya
Mr
Mrs
H
PO
Bihar
PO
Mr
RamNoOm
Ram
Uchana
Nand Shaikh
District
Jai
Ashok
Ghalora
UmriKarnal
855POTehSharma
son
son
son
Sector
Near
District
Karnal
Karnal
Prakash
Birbal
Teh
Pal son
son
son
of
District
Tehsil
Kumar
Yakub
Kumar of
of son
son
Mr
widow
7 son
Mr
Mr
Districtson
Karnal
Mr
Mr
Kurukshetra
Mohan
Urban
of
of
ofof
ofAmar
Mr
Mr
of
Late
Mr
Braham
of
of Parwara
Mr
District
Gas Atma
BachnaMr
West
Shobh Vidhi
Shaikh
District
Kurukshetra
Estate VPO
VPOH
HUricha
Kurukshetra
Nath
Jet Naresh
Model
Ram
VPO
Ram
Singh
Raj Samaria
Karnal
Lal
Munif Kumar
No
Town 205 VPO
New
Niren
Teh
Samaria
Bairsal
165
Butana
Gupta
Bahu
Nilokheri District Karnal

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
20
109 Mr Roshan Lal son of Mr Narata Ram Village Jhirbari
PO Palwal Teh 85 District Kurukshetra
110 Dharam Singh of Mr Chhotu

son
Ram VPO Amin Teh
85 District Kurukshetra
Resporiderits

Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
21
CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SEEKING ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR
FOR QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED APRIL

12 2017 ANNEXURES P1 AND PASSED
P2
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER or THE
INDUSTRIAL CUM LABOUR
COURT PANIPAT IN NO 62014

IN THE INTEREST or JUSTICE EQUITY AND
FAIR
A
PLAY
ANDOR
ISSUE WRIT
OTHER
oRDER oR THAT THIS HONBLE
CoURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1 That the Petitioner is a company duly incorporatedunder
CompaniesAct 1956 its 42nd N H

ofce at
KMStone
The
8 Gurgaon
of actioni has arisen within the
cause
territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such the
Petitioner is competent to invoke the extraordinaryjurisdictionof
this Honble Court under Articles 226227 of the Constitution of
India for quashingthe proceedingsbefore the PresidingOfcer of
the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Panipat and the
Orders dated April 12 2017 a true copy of which are annexed

as
Annexures Pl and
P2 ThePetitioner
I
Company
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
22
being a juristic person is ling the present Writ Petition in its
own name
throughits Authorized Signatory Mr Rahul Vaish
2 Thatthe brief facts of the instant case are reproducedherein
as
under
a the Management is
That Petitioner a Company
registeredunder the CompaniesAct 1956
b That the Respondentshad issued a Demand Notice

under Section the Industrial Disputes Act on
October 4 2007 Ofcer Karnal
On receipt of the said Demand Notice Conciliation
proceedingswere held
c The said Conciliation proceedings was nally

into a VoluntaryRetirement which
was a
into Tripartite Settlement before
Cum Ofcer
on August 26
2008 Annexure P15 9
d That in response to the said Scheme introduce by the
Company 203 employees including the 107

Respondentsexcept Sukhdev Singh who are a party
to the present industrial dispute voluntarilyapplied

for under the said Scheme and received all their dues
in and I
full
final the
Respondents have led their PF and
Pension Form and the amount of the same
Further the have also availed tax
benets the payment received under

on
thesaidVRS
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
23
That the said 203 employees the 108
Respondentswere paid their respectiveamounts under
the said Scheme on various dates The said employees
accepted their payments which were paidthrough

cheques and encashed by them and
thereafter depositedthe said money in their respective

bank accounts without any protest lodgedby them
Out of 203 employees who accepted VRS 126
employeesled a writ petition before Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Year 2009 During the
pendency of the case Labour led their
written statement giving details related to Tripartite
Settlement under section123 of ID act for VRS
Labour departmentin their reply stated that the said
Settlement was executed voluntarilyand no coercion

or
undue inuence was exercised while opting
for and
signing the said Settlement which isin accordance
with provisionsof the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
Further regardingthe alleged conditional
which is the basis

of this writ petition led by
respondents
theWritten led by Labour
departmentstates that the letter dated August 22
2008 was Simply a proposal put forth by the
petitioners to the management it by no stretch of
imaginationmay be styledas a settlement Statement
further claries that No such document was

ever
produced or in the course of conciliation
proceedingbeforethe ofcer It was also
claried in the reply there was no Closure or

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL retrenchment at the Establishment and that the
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
8
h That
On the
Voluntary
employees said
disposed
duly the Punjab
petition
challenged
thewhich the
Haryana
by the High
as
Court
Annexure
Settlement
Claimants
the and
26022013 P 13
copy accepted
ofdated
Honble
the
of Scheme
writ order 2008
benets
isand was
annexed
led under
formulated
herewith
the
said
VRS
24
after about ve years in theyear 2013 by raising an
industrial dispute through their General Charter of
Demand under before the

Section 2 k DLCPanipat
which was duly being considered by the Conciliation
Ofcer
However on November 8 2013 counsel for the
Respondent recorded his statement before
the ofce of the DLC which is

Panipat annexed as
Annexure P3 That as the Conciliation
had continued beyond 90 days he was therefore
exercising his legal right to approach the Honble
Industrial TribunalCum Labour Court Panipat
directlyHowever it is pertinent to note that there is
no
such legal that permits the Respondents
to raise of before the

a
Demanddirectly
Industrial Tribunal without obtaining a Reference
Order under Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct
1947 In view of these facts and circumstances the
allegeddisputefiled on behalf of the directly
before the Honble Labour Court is nonest and not

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH maintainable under the provisionsof the law Relevant
That
OrderAdvocate for the Respondent
I
J herewith as Annexure
dated November is also instituted
P4 8 2013wbrkmen annexed
the proceedingsbefore the Learned Industrial Tribunal
Cum Labour 22 2013

CourtPanipat on
However till October9 2015 ie for a period of
approximatelytwo years he did not provide the
Managementa copy of of Claim as also
the documents in support of the Claim In fact the
Management on the hearing dated September 12
2014 was constrained to le an Application under
Rule 10 B 1 to3 of the Industrial DisputesPunjab
Rules 1958 for of the documents Annexures
which were repeatedly mentioned in the Claim
Statement The Advocate of the Claimant providedthe
relevant documents Annexures to the Management
only on October 9 2015 despite numerous
instructions from the Court therebywastingvaluable
judicial time and that of the ManagementThis also
clearly that the Respondentshave no legal
valid tenable
casein their support in these
or
proceedings the VRS which was
formulated into a legal valid and binding Settlement
dated August 26 2008 under the the
Industrial DisputesAct 1947 and thereforeought to
have been summarilydismissed It is also pertinentto
note that in the Applicationdated September
12 2014 a was also taken to direct the
Respondentsto deposit the amount which they had

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL acceptedwithout any demur It is importantto note
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
k That thereafter
receipt the Written
said Application even before
duly led
that of the
the was
Statement
Statement
led
of Claim was the
26
on on
behalf of the Petitioners November 252015The
same as
is annexed herewith AniiexureP5 It is
pertinentto note that Petitioners raised the issue that
no
Reference Order has been made by the appropriate
governmentin this matter and in these
the alleged are nonest and void ab initio
Petitioners also made a

specic plea for depositingthe
amount of VRS duly accepted by the Respondent

before proceedingin the matter before the Labour
Court was once again reiterated in the Written
Statement
itself The Respondents led their
RejoinderReplication to the said Written Statement
on
January 8 2016 and the same is annexed
It is noteworthy to mentionthat the claim forms
submitted on behalf of claimants in Industrial
Tribunal were materiallyand signicantly different to
those submitted High Court

in theHonble in year
2009 This also clearly establishes that the
Respondentshave no legal valid or case in
their support in these proceedings the VRS
which was formulated into a legal valid and binding
Settlement dated August 26 2008 under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 A
comparison of the Claims in monetary is
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57 annexed herewith as Annexure P17
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
27
The Claim Statement led by the seeks
for VRS compensationfor balance years of service ie
till the age of superannuation ie 58 years
encashment of Casual Leaves and Compensation
under Section 25FF of ID Act All these heads were not
even
mentioned when respondentshad the writ
led
before Punjab and Haryana High Court in year 2009
which clearly is
indicates the
claim
imaginary without any basis illegal
and untenable
Respondents have been doing shing and roving
exercise to extort more sum of monies from
management The before Industrial

claimforms led
Tribunal and those led before This Honble High

Court has signicant and material difference Not even
a
single component in claim led before
the Honble
Punjaband HaryanaHigh Court in year 2009 andthat

of led now in Year 2015 before Tribunal
cum
Labour Court includingthe base salaryis same
It is pertinentto note that the Respondents have led
various Complaints and Claims before different
Authorities of Labour Department after disposal of
their Writ Petition by Honble High Court in 2013
Date of Type of Authority Status
ling CaseComplain
July 8 Complaints Labour Disposed of
2013 Sections Commissioner vide

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE 25 T and U ID forwarded to dated
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
18
Act DLC Panipat 28 1 12013
for
adjudication
8 Labour Disposed of
J
July Complaints
2013 Sections Commissioner vide order
under
25 N 0 ID Act forwarded to dated
DLC Panipat 28112013

for
May 2013 Gratuity Controlling Authority
Payment Authority rejected the
under I Claim and
GratuityAct upheld the
payment
as
per Act
and
Settlement
June 4 Sections 25N 85 Labour Authority

2014 0 disposed of
forwarded to the
joint Labour Complaint
Commissioner
for
adjudication
March 3 Appeal against Appellate Appeal
2016 GratuityOrder authority rejected
and
DLC Panipat upheld the
Order of
I
Controlling
Authority
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
P That thereafter on January 8 2016 the following
2
Issues were on the pleadings of
framed based the
parties
1 26808
Whetherthe settlement dated was
in the true spirit of the offer conditional
agreement dated 22808 and the
respondent has failed to
implementthe same If yes to what relief the
workmen are entitled to OPW
2 Whether the demand 1

No to 4 of the
group of workmen are

justied and valid
If yes then what relief they are entitled
to OPW
3 Whether the group of workmen is entitled
any difference of claim as per Annexure

1 to Annexure 108 OPW
4 Whether the claimants opted for Voluntary
Retirement Scheme and received a the
benefits under the scheme If so whether
the claimants are required to the
principal amount received by them under
the above said scheme OPM
5 Whether the claimants ceases to be a
workman US 2 s of the 10 Act after
opted Retirement Scheme If
so its effect OPM
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
30
6 Whether the rejudicata is applicable in
respect of Demand No 3 ie Gratuity

OPM
7 Whether the claimants are not a workman
names as
mentioned in the preliminary
submission No VII of management reply
OPM
8 Relief
A copy of the said Order is annexed herewith as
Annexure P7
That one of the workmen Mr Lakhwinder Singh
WW2 led his in

AfdavitStatementevidence
chief and with the same annexed a Special Power of
Attorney as Exhibit WW2 B is annexed herewith as
Annexure P8 Colly
The same was challengedby the Management
by filing an dated August 26 2016 which is
annexed herewith as Annexure P9 on the premised
well settled of evidence that a Power of
Attorney Holder does not have the right to deposeon
behalf of the Claimant A Reply dated October 7 2016
which is annexed herewith as Annexure P10 to the
said Applicationwas filed on behalf of the Respondents
That thereafter on hearingthe parties vide impugned
Order dated April 12 2017 Annexure P2 the Learned
Labour Court erred in rejectingthe contentions of the

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Petitioner Managementand further erred in holding
I I j
present said o
t
u
v regard
by
Reply
apex
In
the
That
that
of Respondents
same
Annexure
Labour
which
dated to
process
mentioned
the
herewith
Scheme
Honble
Claimants
view
the
the Respondents
were
to
Petitioner
CourtCourt
Court
with
of
the
August deposit
absolutely
asasabove
ofathe
the deposit
preliminary
Application
Management
was on
on
AnnexureP
to
relied
aforesaid
P11law
failed
also
26fact hearing
to
upon
2016
also
and
of
forApplication
by
despite
directing
delaying
principal
overlooked
that
October
under
the principal
awhich
relevant was
7on
the
the
constrained
determine
the
12 issue
the
andPetitionerManagement
parties
is nothing
raising
was
In
2016
the to
to the
Judgments
Voluntary
amount
amount
various
the
annexed
tactic
the
lean
the
which
vide
theonis
but impugned
plea
respondents
point annexed
herewith
an oroftreat
abuse
31
Retirement
issue
The behalf
Learned
received
circumstances
ledoccasions as
as
with
the
of
Orders dated April 12 2017 the Labour Court
erred in holding that this is not a

properstage for
movingsuch an
Applicationand the same beingdevoid
of any merit stands dismissed
3 That the impugnedOrders Pl passed

Annexures and P2
by the LearnedLabour Court is devoid of any merit and has been
passed without any applicationof mind in view of the

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
32
settled law keepingin view the SupremeCourt Judgmentsreferred
to before the Learned Labour Court
4 That it is the humble submission of the Petitioner that the
said Orders are unsustainable and perverseand further the
proceedings before the Labour Court are itself beyond the
jurisdictionand scope of the Learned Labour Court
After accepting workers are no longer workmen
under Section 2s of the 1D Act so workers agitating
the matter under 2k is not

validThis matter was
raised by the petitionerthroughwritten statement and
as an on
add Prayer in application under Section
10B The Ld Tribunal framed this as an issue to
decide if workers after takingVRS are workmen as per
ID Act or not but Tribunal has not registeredthis as
an
issue which needspreliminaryredressal
5 That in of the above aggrievedby the impugnedOrders

view
dated April 12 2017 the Petitioner is invokingthe extraordinary
jurisdictionof this Honble Court to quash the said Ordersas well
as
the present proceedingsbefore the Learned Labour Court on
the following amongst other grounds which are taken without
prejudiceto one another viz

5
A For that the Learned Labour Court failed to observe that the
Statement of Claim was purportedlyled under Section 2 k
ofthe Industrial DisputesAct It is pertinenttonote that the
saidSection is
a
Denition Clause dening the term
Industrial Dispute and not a relevant provisionunder which
an
employeeor a of employeescan raise anydispute
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
directlybefore the Industrial Tribunal
a
ORIGINAL
Cum Labour Court
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
33
Further it has been falselystated in the openingparagraph
of the Statement of that The Learned Deputy Labour

Claim
Commissioner dated 8112013
Panipat on
hasadvised
the group of workmen to le the Claim Statement before this
Honble Court in view of the Amendment under Sections 2
and 3 2 10 C of the Disputes

A Industrial
Amendment Act 2010 Act On a bare perusal of the
statement of Mr Chandna as well as the Order of the DLC
which are already annexed herewith as Annexure 173 and
Annexure P4 it is evident that the said request was made
by the Counsel for the Respondentsand that the Deputy
Labour Commissionerin his Order stated that based on the
statement of the Counsel for the in case the
Respondents wish to file

ClaimStatement the
Labour Court they are free to do so
That in case of a VoluntaryRetirement as per the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme the employeeis neither discharged
dismissed retrenched or terminated and in fact voluntarily
retires from his services In the present case it is also
important to note that the concerned employeenot only
received the compensationamount as per the Scheme but
have also themselves lled their PF and Pension Forms and
withdrawn the amount of the same Further the
Respondents have also availed the tax benefits on the
payment received under the said VRS The payments
received were paid through cheques and subsequently
encashed by them after depositingthe said money in their
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57 respectivebank account without any protest or demur It is
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
34
further claried that Voluntary Retirement is specically
excluded under the definition of
In fact it is settled
law as held in the case of EID
Parry India Ltd Chennai Vs MN Padmanabhan 85
Another reportedas 2008 LLR 1087Madras High Court

I
that an employeehavingoptedand received all his benets
under Voluntary Retirement Scheme cannot take recourse
under Section 2 A of DisputesAct which

theIndustrial pre
supposes or
existence of either dismissal discharge
retrenchment whereas the term Voluntary Retirement has
been specically excluded by Section 2 00 of the Industrial
Disputes Act dening Retrenchment The said Judgment
further holds that in such a situation where the workman
has received all his benets including that too
under a Settlement he ceases to be a workman as dened
under Section 2 s of the Industrial Act Hence he
cannotraise a disputeunder the IndustrialDisputesAct
For that the Labour Court errediin holding in the
impugnedAward Annexure P2 as follows

I
Needless to say that since the matter is as industrial
dispute under Section 2 K of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947 and not an dispute tenderingof

individual
Afdavit on
behalf of all Claimants by an individual
Claimant getting stretch from a Special Power of
Attorneyis not at legalby any stretch of imagination
as an
unlike individual dispute under Section 2 A
clearlyexplainhis own circumstances in an industrial

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
dispute under Section2 K the talk is with regard to
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
35
the grievanceof all the workmen collectivelywho are
claimingtheir difference of amount on similar pattern
contained in all the 1 to 108 Annexures
It is submitted that the Labour Court has clearlyerred
in the
considering present proceedingsto be under
2K which as alreadysubmitted is only a Denition Clause
under the Industrial Disputes Act dening Industrial
Disputes and does not provideany mechanism for initiating
any proceedingsunder the Act It is submitted that under
the Act the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal can
adjudicatean industrialdispute only once it is referred by
the appropriateGovernment under Section 10 the only
exception to the same being Section 2 A wherein the
individual workman is permitted to directly approach the
Labour Court in the circumstances as mentioned

in the said
Section However in the present case no Reference has
been made by the appropriate Government

andin such
circumstances the Labour Court has no to
adjudicateupon the said matter speciallyin View of the fact
as above that
mentioned it has itself decided in the
impugnedOrder dated April 12 2017 Annexure P2 that
the present dispute is not under Section 2 A
For that the Learned Labour Court erred in overlookingthe
fact that the allegeddemands claims of the Respondentsare
prima facie bad in

law as
the same seek to agitate the
VoluntaryRetirement Scheme which was incorporatedinto a
Settlement under Section 18 3 with due under

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 Section 12 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 which
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
36
has already been accepted by the Respondentswithout

demur and they have received allthebenets under
the said Scheme which is an

position Hence
challenging the Voluntary Retirement which was
formulated into a legal valid and binding dated
August 26 2008 that too under Section 18 3 of the
Industrial Disputes Act ie a arrived at in the
course of the proceedingswhich is not just

binding on the but on all workmen of the
Establishment is untenable in law and thus the present
proceedingsbefore the Learned Labour Court need to be
summarilydismissed
For that the Learned Labour Court failed to appreciatethat
the Respondentshad initially approachedthis Honble Court
challenging the Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide Writ
Petition which was held to be nonmaintainable The said
Judgmentis annexed herewith as Annexure P13 However
the said Judgmentreferred to the SupremeCourt Judgment
in Barauni Renery PragatisheelShramik Parishad Vs
Indian Oil CorporationLtd 85 Others reportedas AIR 1990
SC 1801 after explainingthewide scope of the Settlement
under Section 18 3 of the Act wherebysuch Settlements are
applicableto all the irrespectiveof the fact that

they are representedbefore the Conciliation the Honble
Court holds that such Settlements under Section18 3 to
an
extent Depart from the ordinary law of contract The
objectobviously is to hold the sanctity of Settlements
reachedwith the active assistance of the Conciliation Ofcer
and to discouragean individual or a minority union from

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
scuttlingthe Settlement There is an underlyingassumption
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
37
ie Settlement reached with the help of the Conciliation
Ofcer must be fair and reasonable and can therefore safely
be made binding not only on the workman to the
Union signing the Settlement but also on others That is
why a Settlement arrivedat in the course of Conciliation
proceedings is put on par with an Award made by an
AdjudicatingAuthority
Further in National EngineeringIndustryLtd Vs State
of Rajasthan Others reportedas 2000 1 SCC 371 after
reiterating the bindingnature of Settlements under Section
18 3 of the Act the Court further held that Settlements will
encompass all the disputes existing at the time of the
Settlement except those specically left out
the Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of
Hindustan Lever Ltd Ghaziabad Unit Vs Presiding Ofcer
Industrial Tribunal No V Meerut reported as
2004 LLR 907 has held that when all the employeeshave
opted for VoluntaryRetirement and on acceptance

oftheir
option received the benets accruing out of the Scheme
they are estopped from challenging the validity of the

and
as
such the High Court willinot grant any
relief since they have given up all their previousrights
Hencein view of the Judgment the present Demands

said
Claims are untenable in law as the same seek to raise issues
and disputes regardingthe Retirement Scheme
whichwas agreed to by way of

a
Anil Kumar Pandey
Conciliation Settlement
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL dated August 26 2008 under Section 12 3 of the Industrial
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
38
Disputes Act 1947 which benetshave already been
acceptedby the said employeesin full and nal settlement of
all claims and dues on the Management
the Honble SupremeCourt of India in the case of Punjab

National Bank Vs Virendra Kumar Goel amp
Others reported
as 2004 LLR 267 and the Honble High Court of Delhi in the
case
of Tribal Marketing Development
Federation of India Vs Siddhartha Kumar reportedas 2008
LLR 915 have held that opting for a Voluntary Retirement
Scheme by an employeeand acceptance of such exercise of
option by the Managementis deemed to be a concluded
contract and the provisionsof the Indian Act 1872

Contract
are
applicableto such an arrangement
Further once the have opted

for
Retirement Scheme and therebyacceptedbenets under the
said Scheme the Superior Courts have held that the said
employee cannot withdraw from or

challengethe said
VoluntaryRetirement Scheme Hence in View of the said
Judgments the present Demands Claimsare frivolous

vexatious and untenable in law as the Claimants have
accepted the benets under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme which was

the basis of the Settlement dated August
26 2008 and thus have entered into a binding Contract
Further in accordance with the said Judgments the
employeesare estoppedfrom challengingthe said Settlement
as
they have already opted for the and also
acceptedbenetsunder the same
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
37
the Honble SupremeCourt of India case of Man Singh

inthe
Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd amp
Another reportedas 2011
LLR 1009 has held that in an industrialdispute wherein a
Retirement Scheme has been challenged

after the
Claimants have accepted the benets under the said
Scheme the Claimants are necessarilyrequired to deposit
with the Management the principal amount received by them
under the Scheme only thereafter this Honble Court can

adjudicate upon the Reference Order made by the
appropriate Government Hence in View of the said
Judgment of the apex Court even if the employeeswish to
challenge the Voluntary Retirement Scheme through the

Claims Demands they
are
requiredin law in the
rst instance deposit the
to return and benetsalready
accepted by them under the Scheme thereafter only
adjudicationregardingthe said Scheme may be proceeded
with before this Honble Tribunal
It is further interestingto note that in the said matter
this Honble Court in Civil Writ Petition No 3358of 2008
being MarutiSuzuki India Ltd Vs State of Haryana amp
Another theCourt was not just of the view that the benets
alreadyacceptedand duly received were necessarilyrequired

to be depositedbut also imposeda rate of interest 75
annum
per to be paid by the workman the matter
beingadjudicatedupon
For that the Learned holdingin

Labour Courterred in the
impugnedOrder that the presentApplicationled on behalf
Anil Kumar Pandey

of the Petitioner was an
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
abuse of process of law and had
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
40
been led only to delaythe proceedingsIt is submitted that
based on the aforementioned Case Law as also the
Judgment of the Honble SupremeCourt in Raijibhai

Bhikhabhai Parmar 8 Others Vs Reliance Industries Ltd
formerly known as India Petro Chemicals CorporationLtd

85 Another reportedas 2016 LLR Page 673 the law on the
point has been elaboratelydiscussed and thereforethe said
Application was necessary for complianceof the the
land in true letter and laid down by the apex Court

spiritas
For that the Learned Labour Court erred in holding that the
Case Law relied upon by the AR for the
Applicant Managementare not applicableas the same are
related with the Scheme of VRS whereas the
matter in hand relates with the implementationof the
Scheme by way of claiming differenceamount It is
submitted that the VRS

was part
Scheme which a of the
Settlement arrived during the Conciliation proceedingsitself
being a Settlement under Section 18 3 has been fully
compliedwith and the monetary emoluments therebyhave
been fully acceptedand received by the Respondents

and
depositedin their accounts Thus the Labour Court clearly
law
t
erred on as well as fact that the present

matter relates to
the implementationof theScheme specially in view of the
fact that the Scheme had been fully implemented
the Learned Labour Court erred in holding that the
workman are not claimingreinstatement of their service and
their grievanceis only to the extent of difference
compensationas contained in Annexure 1 to I08 and thus

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 rejecting the Application led on behalf of the Petitioner
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
41
Management It is submitted that in case the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme is held to be bad or againstthe law the

natural relief would be reinstatement with backwages
Further although the Respondents have not claimed
reinstatement which may bevdue to the fact that
they are
already gainfully employed however they have
soughtcompensationunder Section 25 FF which is clearly
part of the Claim and therefore it cannot be said that their
grievance is only to the extent of difference amount of
compensationFurthermore claimants have challengedVRS
by ling complaint before Labour Commissioner Haryana
against management forevasion of provisionsof 25 N O
and also 25T 85U penal action against
Claimants doing shing

androving by ling
are
various
cases are
and claimants not just asking for difference in
amount They have concealed material fact of theiragitation
and thus the present order that the are askingfor
claimants
difference of amount is not factuallycorrect
For that the Learned Court erred in agreeingwith the

Labour
arguments advanced by the Learned AR for
the
workmen Respondents that the should have
been moved before the start of the evidence and in the
present case the Application was led after cross
examination of one of the summoned witness of the
workmen It is submitted that the witness was a formal
witness summoned by the Respondentworkmen to produce
certain records of another matter led by theRespondents

againstthe Petitioner under the Payment of Act It
is also pertinent to note that the said matter was

nally
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE decided in favour of the Petitioner Thus there was no
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
prejudicein the said Applicationat the present
stage of the proceedingsmore so when the witness admitted
that he was merelycarrying the records from the ofce of
ControllingAuthority under Paymentof Gratuity Act asked

for by the Honble Industrial Tribunal and knows nothing
about the case and the matter at hand It could have been
any person from the office of ControllingAuthority under
Gratuity Act and thus means no as as merits of

far
this case is More it is submitted
that the Petitioner Management at the very rst instance
itself had raised this issue even before it received the
complete set of Statement of Claim

ie while ling the
Application dated September 12 The same plea
2014
regardingdepositingthe amount of VRS was again taken in
the Written Statement Thereafter the Learned Labour
Court was pleased to frame an Issue in this regard

However the Learned Labour Court failed to appreciate
that
the said issue ought to have been a

preliminaryissue as far
as before the Labour are

the present Court
concerned and thus it was necessary to le the present
Application at the present stage itself ie soon

afterthe
of Issues
For that the Learned Labour Court erred in holding as
follows
The main grouse of the Respondentis since the

that
matter had been settled and the of VRS has
been received by the workmen they cannot get
the adjudication of the present Reference without
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57 depositingthe money received by them in lieu of VRS
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
43
It is worthwhile to mention here that the Management
had filed the Written Statement on November 27
2015 taking the specic plea which he

has
by movinga separate Application and on the basis of
his pleadings of both parties the Issued had been
framed on January 8 2016 and these Issues cover
the dispute which the Respondent has raised
deposit of benet received by the workmen
at the time when the evidence of the workmen had

started
In view of the foregoingdiscussion this Court is of the
view that this is not a proper stage for moving such
Application and the same being devoid of any merits
Accordingly it stands dismissed
It is submitted that the Learned Labour Court was of
the view that as

the issue with regard to depositing the
benet received under the VRS was already framed the
present Applicationwas otiose However the Honble Court
failed to appreciatethat the said issue was in the nature of
preliminaryissue as it would have no meaningand effect at
the time of passingthe Award The said law as settled by the
Supreme Court is based on the principle of equity and
premisedon the law of contract and thereby the Supreme
Court has held that in order to challengethe VRS Scheme
duly accepted and thereof duly the
workmen are necessarilyrequiredto return deposit the said

amount before theycan be enabled to the It
challenge same
is also reiterated that the present VoluntaryRetirement

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 Scheme was nalized and arrived at during the Conciliation
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
proceedingsitself ie under Section
18 3 of the Industrial
Disputes Act Therefore the are
same at a higher
compared to mere between the
employerand employees

in the Claim Statement there is a claim for compensation
I
sought under Section 25 FF of the Industrial DisputesAct

Although the saine isinot it is pertinentto
refer that Claimants earlier also led a beforethe
Deputy Labour Commissioner Panipat the
Management for violation of Sections 25 N and25 O with
Sections 32 and 34 of the Industrial DisputesAct After
hearing arguments from both the parties the Learned
Authoritywas pleasedto dismiss the Complaintanddid not
nd any merit in the saidComplaint The said Orderof the
Deputy Labour Commissioner annexed herewith as

is
Annexure P14 Statement led by
Furthermore
theClaim
the Respondentsalso raises a claim for VRS compensation
for balance years of service ie till the age ofsuperannuation
58 years which too primafacie is
ie imaginary
without
any basis misconceived illegal and untenable In this
regard it is also pertinentto note that theclaimsdemands

as set out in the Writ led by the Respondents
before this Honble Court prior to the present
are
similar to those in the proceedingsbefore the Learned
Labour Court However the demands in monetary terms in
the proceedings before the Labour Court reect a huge
divergenceand discrepancy
in the claims and contentions
To illustrate in the case of PyareLal Son of Shri Surat Ram

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE the difference of claim amountshown in the Writ Petition
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
4
before the Honble High Court was Rs l61452 Whereas
his claim before the Learned Labour Court inated to an
amount of Rs702227 Similarly in case of Ram Dhari
Son of Shri KartaRamthe of claim amount
shown in Writ Petition was Rs whereas his claim
before the Learned Labour Court was an amount of
Rs736784 Hence the Claim led by the
before the Learned Labour court is false fabricated and
clearly an afterthoughtA copy of the led by

sample
claim
the claimants before the Honble and the claim

High Court
for the same claimant led before the Honble Tribunal is
x
I
enclosed herewith to the

illustrate malade intentions and
afterthoughton the part of the respondents

as Annexure P
16
For that the Learned Labour Court also erred in dismissing
the Application of the Petitioner vide Order dated April 12
2017 beingAnnexure P2 The said Applicationwas led by
the Petitioner challenging and objecting to the
AfdavitStatement of Mr Lakhwinder
Singh 2 wherein he has filed a Special Power of

WW
Attorneyas Exhibit WW 2B It is mentioned in the said
Afdavit that Mr Lakhwinder Singh WW 2 is to
depose before the Labour Court on behalf of I08
workmenclaimants based on
the said Special Power of
Attorney and the was challengedby the Petitioner
which was rejected

bythe LearnedLabour Court vide
impugnedOrder without of the settled law on
the aspect
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
46
For that the Labour Courtfailed to appreciatethat
the Honble SupremeCourt of Indiain the of Janki

case
Vashdeo Bhojwani 85 Another Vs Induslnd Bank Ltd amp
Others held It may be noted that the Appellants were
shying away from gracing the box The RespondentBank
vehementlyobjectedto allowing the holder of the Power of
Attorneyof the Appellantsto appear in the witness box on
behalf of the This claries that the burden

Court
of proof that the Appellants
haveshare in the property will
be qn the Appellantsand it on
theAppellants
was
to have gracedthe box and dischargedthe burden that they
have a share in the property the extent of share the
independent source of income from which contributed
towards the purchaseof the property
Further the Court Judgment has also
held that
the
The Power of Attorneyholder does not have the
personal knowledgeof the matter of the Appellants and

therefore he can neither deposeon his personal
nor can he be crossexamined on

those facts to the personal
knowledgeof the Principal
Further the Court held that Order III Rules 1 and 2
CPC empowers the holder the Powerof Attorney to act on

of
behalf of the Principal In our view the word actsemployed
in Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC connes only in respect of
acts done by the Power of Attorney holder in exercise of
power grantedby the instrument The term Acts would not
include deposingin place and instead of the Principal In
other words if the Powerof Attorney holder has rendered

Anil Kumar Pandey
some
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE acts in pursuance to Power of Attorney he may
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
depose for the Principal in respect of but he
47
cannot depose for the Principal for the acts done by the
Principal and not by him Similarly he cannot for
the Principal in respect of the matter which the

only
Principal can have a personal and in respect of
which the Principalis entitled to be crossexamined
Similarly in the matter of Man Kaur Dead by LRs Vs
Hartar Singh Sangha the SupremeCourt has reiterated the
above position in paragraph12 which is reproducedherein
for your readyreference
12 We may now summarise for the positionas

convenience
to who should give evidence in regardto matters involving
personalknowledge
a An attorney holder who has signed the plaint and
instituted the suit but has no knowledgeof
the transaction can

onlygiveformal evidence about the
validityof the power of attorney and the ling of the

suit
b If the attorney holder has done any act or handled
any transactions in pursuance

of the power of attorney
granted by the principal he may be examined as a
witness to prove those acts or

transactionsIf the
attorney holder alone has personal knowledgeof such
acts and transactions and not the principal the
attorney holder shall be examined if those acts and
transactions have to be proved
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
48
c The attorney holder deposeor giveevidence

cannot
in place of his principal for the acts done by the
principal or transactions or dealingsof the principal of
which principalalone has personalknowledge
d Where the principal at no point of time had
personallyhandled or dealt with or participatedin the
transaction and has no personal knowledge of the
transaction and where the entire has been
handled by an attorney holdernecessarilythe attorney
holder alone can give evidence in regard to the
transaction This frequently in case of
principals carrying on business through authorized
managers attorney holders or persons residingabroad
managingtheir affairsthroughtheir attorneyholders
e Where the entire transactionhas beenconducted

througha particular holder theprincipalhas to
examine that attorney to

holder thetransaction
and not a differentor subsequentattorneyholder
V0 Where differentattorney holders had dealtwith the
matter at differentstages of the transactionif evidence

has to be led as to what transpiredat those different
stages all the attorney holders will have to be
examined
g Where the law requiresor contemplated

the plaintiff
or other party to a proceeding to establish or prove
somethingwith referenceto his state of mind or
conduct the person concerned alone has to

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
give evidence andnot an holder A landlord
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
4I
who seeks eviction of tenant on the ground of his
bona fide need and a

purchaser specific
performancewho has to show his readinessand

There is however
willingnessfall under this category a
recognizedexceptionto Where all the
affairs of a party are transacted
and looked afterby an attorney happento be
a
close family member it may be to
dccept
the
evidence of such attorney even

withreferenceto bona
des or readiness and willingness Examplesof such
attorney holders are a husband wife exclusively
managingthe of his her spouse

a son daughter
exclusivelymanagingthe affairsof an old and infirm
parent a
father mother exclusively managing the
aairs of a son daughterlivingabroad
Further in the SupremeCourt Judgment of VidhyadharVs
Mankikrao 81 Another reportedas AIR 1996 SC 1441 it is
held as follows
Where a party to the Suit does notappear into the witness
box and states his own case on oath and does not offer
himselfto be crossexamined by the other side a presumption
would arise that the case by him is as

set up
notcorrect has
been held in a
series of decisions passed by High
various
Courts and the the decision in
Privy Council beginningfrom
Sardar Gurbaksha SinghVs Gurdial Singh AIR 1927 PC 230
This was followed by the High Court in Kirpa Singh

Vs Ajawal Singh AIR 1930 1 and the BombayHigh
Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari Vs Radhabai
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57 Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR 1931 Bombay 97 The Madhya
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
50
Pradesh High Court in Carpenter Vs
Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat 1970 Madhya Pradesh
225 also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar

Gurbakhsh Singhs case AIR 1927 PC 23 The
supra
Allahabad high Court in Arjun Singh Vs Virender Nath AIR
1971 Allahabad held that

29 if alpartyabstains from
enteringthe box it would give rise to an inference

witness
adverse against him Similarly a
of the
Punjab and Haryana High

inBhagwan Dass Vs
Bhishan Chand AIR 1974 and Har 7 drew a
under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a
party who did not enter into the witness box
on a
combined reading of the above Supreme Court
Judgment it is crystalclear that Mr Lakhwinder Singh WW
2 cannot
bepermittedto behalfof the workmen
speciallywith regardto aspects which are clearly based on
the personal knowledgeof each individual employeeof the
Petitioner Further he is not capable of proving the
documents marked as Exhibits W 22 to W 2108 that
have admittedlynot been executed by Mr Lakhwinder Singh
but are documents in respect of 107 other

who party
are to the alleged
industrial dispute pending before
the Labour
Court It is further impermissiblein law for the said Mr
Singh to stand and state on oath on
behalf of 107 workmenclaimants in respect of the
acceptance to the VRS Scheme as well as receipt of money
without demur as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE dated August 26 2008
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
It is further submitted that one cannot have
5
personal knowledgeabout each individual pertaining the
individual Claimants VRS Application Service Conditions
rolls as duties and salaries and the

wellas
I
fact that whether they were performing
managerialsupervisory roll thesaidaspects necessarily
require crossexamination certain

Further are
not eligible for any relief even

otherwise for eg
Sukhdev Singh son of Arjun Singh had resignedon his own
and was not entitled offered VRS few of the employeessuch
as Naresh Kumar MahipalMangerametc have expired
after taking the such cases

VRSin andin it is
required to ensure that the legal heirs are made a
to is rightful
party the case therefore
it lawfuland
necessary that all individual workmen present and lead their
evidence before this Honble Court and are duly

iross
examined so that justice is fully met to allparties concerned
In View of the made the Learned
Labour court erred in holdingthatthe Laws relied upon
by the Petitioner related to which were essentially
Civil in nature and had peculiar circumstances with regard
to each and every individuals whereas the present case
relates to the ServiceLabour Law matter of the
Claimants group of workmen essentiallysimilar set

with
I
of circumstances regardto all the Claimants group of
workmen Further in holding that it does

the
not lie in the mouth of the RespondentManagementto
opposetendering Afdavit by Mr Lakhwinder Singh on
behalf of all the Claimants by virtue of Special Power of

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL Attorney and holding that the purpose of tendering the
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
g
evidence in such is but to avoid the record

52
of the court from becoming the similar
set of circumstances again by 108 times and
thus save the precious time of the Court and help to
administration of justice It is quite obvious

that gettingthe
similar circumstances narrated one by

byone
individuals would not save any purpose as the same would
burden on Courts le and makethe litigation
verbose and tortrolix It that even the
proceedings before the Labour Court are Civil
disputesin nature and the proceduresof the Civil Procedure
Code are relevant to the said proceedingsalthough not
wholly applicableon such industrial disputesFurther

the
Court erred in observingthat the present dispute did not
have any peculiar with regardto each and
every individual the same is from the submissions
made above Further the Labour Court failed to
appreciatethat even in case of dispute of all the
workmen concerned the matter needs to be espousedby a
Trade Union and not by grantinga SpecialPower of Attorney
to deposeon behalf of the workmen Lastly it is submitted
that the proceduresoflawhave to necessarilybe complied
with despitethe fact that Court

make
the of the
voluminous and
rbquire
time and consideration of the
Honble Court
6 That the present Petition raises the following
substantial Questions of Law for the kind consideration of this
Honble Court
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
iii Whether
before
impugned
reported
Voluntary
necessarily
Management
rejecting
Supreme
1 askingrespondents
overlooking
adjudication
Raijibhai
rejecting
required
Respondent
Application
Respondent
Retirement Corporation
Scheme
Judgment 85
application
Aprilformerly
deposit
Page
accepted
deposit
dispute 85
85
justified
reported
challenged
petitioner
by legally
itSingh aI
Whether
unsustainable
Vs
under
for
2011
Court
Petro
been
after
under held
LLR
Reliancethe
Maruti
the
in as
Chemicals
thethe
Scheme
Orderthe
in
2016
Industries
the
Claimants
that
said
1009 as
thean
true
indated
the eyes
also amount
3to
Bhikhabhai
the
India
India
Ltd to
Scheme No
industrial
have
of
LLR in
the
Ltdof
theJudgment
the
No
of
law
12 case
has
the
the was
matter
1 the
Another
1673
received
Paimar
Ltd of
been
known of
Man
Claimants
isof
the
where
VRS
thewith Another
as
wherein
the
Others
is
justied are
benefits
amount
Honble
themas
apex
Vs
P
in
Indiain
vide
has
the
53
dismissing the Application of the Petitioner vide
Order dated April 12 2017 Annexure P2 The
without appreciation of the settled law

Anil Kumar Pandey
inter
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH alia the Supreme
Court case in the matter of
T
vi
12Reference
Whether 385 before
i
vii a
as
case
apex
LRs
the
Janki 3aspect
Respondents
Learned
Whether
Act
without
admitted
Bank
seek
which
Section
has
benets already
Vsto
section
filedstrictly
agitate
demur
was
any
18
Hartar
Labour
Vashdeo
Ltd
of
Courtthethe
the
the
has
the are
without
in
Orderpresent
been
position present
incorporated
Respondent
Singh
with
before
Industrial
the
been
is
Others
under
the
and the
Court
the dealt
due Learned
primafacie
by
following
accepted
Voluntary
they
proceedings
Disputes
areappropriate
compliance
eproceedings
mployees
Sangha
with
denition
the
asthe well
into
saidby
asa
procedure
wherein
Man
in
without
of
the
have
badclause
Scheme
Retirement
in
detail
Labour
Anotherthe jurisdiction
1947
ofas
Settlement
in Kaur
received
claims
law
any
Act after opting
decision
the
under
led by
Government
Vs tID which
ofAct
which of isthe
same
under
absence
he
Court
Induslnd
the
Scheme
Section
all
Deadlaw
the
of an
on
by
are
the
andID
the
for
of
2k the 54
Anil Kumar Pandey Voluntary Retirement Scheme and thereby
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH acceptingthe benets under the said Scheme can
55
IA withdraw from the challenge the said

same or
VoluntaryRetirement Scheme especiallyin view of

o
the well settled principlesas laiddown by the apex
Court as mentioned above
7 That the petitionerhas been left with no other statutory
remedy even by way of an appeal or revision except to invoke
the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Honble Court
under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India againstthe
order
8 That the petitionerhas not led any other writ petitionfor

similar relief before this Honble Court or before the Honble
Supreme Court No such or

similar writ petition is pending
adjudicationbefore any competent court of law
PRAYER
It is therefore respectfullyprayed that this Honble Court
may kindly summon the records of the case and after perusingthe
same may kindly be pleasedto
Issue
i a
writinthe nature of certiorari or
any other writ order or
direction for quashing the
orders
dated 12042017Annexures P1
and
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
P2 passedby the PresidingOfficer of
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
iii Issuance
passed
Panipat
Stay of the
present other
12042017Annexures
byoperation Presiding
petition Officer
the appropriate
impugned writ
stay
dated
further
in thethe
Industrial
of the
Court
play interest
in any
writ
of
in ofduring
Cum
No
Reference
justice 6 equity
No pendency
the
P1
Labour orders
and
and
of fair
the
Court
62014 P2
order or direction that this Honble Court
may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case
Dispensewith the issuance of the advance
notice to the respondentsunder the High
Court Rules and orders
with of true typed

theling
copies in and certied copies and
photocopiesof Annexures and permit the
petitionerto le the photocopyof second
set of writ petitionbefore this iHonble

Court
56
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
57
vi Award the costs of the present writ
petitionto the
Chandigarh
DatedA3 6S9I9 Pe iti
MR
Throughcounsel XAHUL
V g
S
pm
Alok Mitta
Advocate
g
Vrif1cation Counsel for the Petiitioner
Veried that the contents of paras 1 to and para

Nos to
of the above writ petitionare true and correct to my
submissions
The as
made out in para No of the above writ
are believed to be true and correct beingmade on of
if
the counsel No part of it is false and nothing has been kept
concealed there from
Dated l3498l Rmmt VMy

ti
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
56
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATESOF PUNJAB
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No of 201

9l7
M s TRL Riceland Pvt Ltd Formerly known as Ms Tiilda

Riceland Ltd Ltd
Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Ofcer Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court Panipat

and others
Respondents
Afdavit of Mr Rahul Vaish s0 Sh sc Vaish
aged about 43 years Head HR 85
Administration of M s TRL Riceland Pvt Ltd
Formerly known as
M s Tilda RicelandLtd
Ltd having its ofce at 421KM Stone NH8
Gurgaon
1 the above named deponentdo herebysolemnly

afrm and
declare as under
1 That deponentis ling the accompanyingamended Civil
Writ Petition in this Honble Court and is well conversant with
the facts of the writ petition
2 That the contents of paras 1 to 5 and para Nos 7 to 9 of

the above writ petitionare true and correct to my knowledgeThe
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
legal submissions as made out in para No 6 of the above writ
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
we
above
petition Certied
by
nothing Tuthe
part be
be nothing
being
Nos1 part my
Datethe 093
concealed
Dated
is
Place
of false are67
counsel
Vrifiationand
Veried on
there
afdavit
atW
333 are
from
No
believed true
oathSA
that to ofcontents
material
and true
correct
ithas
isand to
false
beencorrect
ofmy
and
concealed
para and
therein
made
has on
Nobeenofkept
2 advice
of it
S
mWt
la 2lt Ask
ll
who is
LU
C Dssioner
Datedl3
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
N N
lil
4e9M4L lD4
PRef No614
OthersVs TRL RicelandPvt Ltd
Sh PyareLalamp
Present Shri
Sh RakeshSharmaAR for the
AR for the
DalipChandna
ORDER
This Order of mine shall disposeof an filed by the

application
with a prayer to direct the claimants to depositthe
amount received bythem under the voluntary
principal schemewith
the That the claimantshad issued a demandnotice

under Section
2K of the D Act on 4 October 2007 before conciliation Karnal On
receiptof said demandnotice conciliation proceedings

were held which was
the
finallyculminated into a voluntaryretirement scheme which was incorporated
into a officer
Labourcumconciliation Augus 26
tripartite
settlement before on
2008 That in response to the said scheme introducedby the company203

includingthe107 claimantsexceptSukhdevSinghwho are a partyto
the presentIndustrialDisputevoluntarilyappliedfor under the said schemeand
all their dues as full andfinal settlement Thereafterthe claimants have
H 5
N
dates Theere
saidpaidtheir respective under the
their payments
amounts which
said scheme on various
werepaidthrough
chequesand subsequently the said
encashedby them and thereafter deposited
money in their bank accounts

respective without any pretextlodged
by them
That thesaid 108 claimants have now challenged
in the presentproceedings
the
saidscheme and had before the tribunal that they had not received
acnateg m as per the

payments settlementagreement
dated 222008 ln
lL rL 1
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
p their claim bychallenging
VRS and paymentreceived by them they r

ORIGINAL
the received
deposited amount bythem under the scheme
PHHC, CHANDIGARH l
Iudusta
Rlrralg not i
r
l1
I
CguifrPal
I Trrlxm gl I
v Y
6
Sh PyareLal amp
2
with the managementFurtheraverredthat as per the law the workmanwho

desiresto contest the VRS are to depositthe
required amount by them
received
at the time of cessation of the employment
with the as a pre
Hence before further adjudication

of is held the
claimantsbe directed to immediatelydepositwith the management

company
the amount received by them under the aforesaid scheme this
application
2 Notice of this was givento
application the oppositepartywho filed
the replycontestingthe present applicationthat the same is not maintainable
because did
the respondent not objectat the time of tenderingthe affidavit of
the workman It is further submittedthat the respondent
had movedthe present
only to delaythe proceedings

application and to harassthe He had
also not approached

the court with clean handsand had intentionally
suppressed
the materialfacts from this court Lastlyit is submitted that the management
is
to file and maintain the presentapplication

esstopped by his own act and conduct
4 group wherein
asthe of workman had filed a Civil Writ Petition No156of 2009 againstthe
they had directlychallenged the VRSScheme before the
6
Honble h Court of Punjabamp
HaryanaChandigarhand the matter was being
isposeo with the observationsthat the respondent shall be at libertyto avail

provided u nder the and civil law
593 I have heard Ld ARs for both the partieson the presentapplication
and have gone throughthe file of the presentapplication
4 It hasbeen arguedby Ld AR for the that

A
they have to depositamount

before adjudicating of VRS In of his
Pt 3inTche
contention he has
gasetitled relied
Man Singh Vs this
upon Maruti India
Suzukiof
judgment Honble India
Another reported
Supreme as
Ltd
LLR
1009 The Ilonbe SupremeCourt in the saidcase held that an
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL m
PHHC, CHANDIGARH strial Dispute
I I I a retirement Scheme has been challenged
tr
62
Sh Lalamp
Pyare OthersVs TRL RicelandPvt Ltd
3
after the claimants have accepted
the benefits under the said scheme are
necessarily to depositthe principal

required amount receivedby them under the
before the court

schemewith the management can proceed
to adjudicate
upon
the reference order made by the appropriate
Govt He has further relied upon
the judgmentof Honble SupremeCourt of India in casetitled Raijibhai

Bhikhabhai Parmar 8 Others Vs Reliance Industries Ltd Formerly Known as
india CorporationLtd 3 another reportedas 2016 LLR Page 673

petrochemicals
wherein it was VRS compensation
held that after receiving if the workmenwant
to challengethe same by raisingan IndustrialDisputetheywill have to deposit

the amount receiving
towardsVRS
5 On the other hand it has been arguedby Ld AR for the
is not maintainablebecause if
that the present application
had to take such an objectionthen he should have movedthe

and beforethe start of evidence From the record
the earlier stage
the presentapplication
had been moved when the affidavit of
I
2
witness WW1 had been tenderedand after that similarly

an affidavit
of was also tendered but the AR for the management did not
intentionally
crossexamine this witness which shows that there was malafide on the part of
the managementand the managementwanted to in this

delaythe proceedings
case if any such legal objectionwas available with them then the
shouldhaveget it decidedbefore start of evidence
respondent
6 In view of the submission made by both the parties
on the present
applicationand after the perusalon record this courtlis

of the view that the
I
is an abuse of process of law and had been filedonlyto delay

The
the proceedings case law relied upon by AR for the
V
hare not as same are related with challenging the scheme of VRS
the matter
in hand relates with the the scheme by
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 i
ORIGINAL claiming L amount Moreover the workmen are not claiming
PHHC, CHANDIGARH f
i
I
43
Sh PyareLal amp
4
reinstatementof their service andtheir grievancesare only to the extent of

difference of amount of as containedin annexure 1 to 108
Further I agree with the argumentsadvanced by Ld AR for the
shouldhave been moved before start

that this application
of the evidence the respondent

had moved this application
on 26816 after
crossexamination witness of the workmanand the affidavitof

of one summoned
the other witness had been tendered on that date but he was not beingcross
examined The main grouseof the respondent
is that sincethe matterhad been
of VRS had been receivedby the workmanhence they

settledand the payment
cannot get the adjudication

of the presentreference without depositing
the
money received bythem in lieu of VRS It is worthwhile to mention here thai the
had filedthe written statement on

271115 takingthe specific
plea
which agitatingby movingof separateapplication
and on the basisof his
hehad
pleadings partiesthe issues had been framed on 8116 and these issues
j K
covers has raised regarding
the isputewhich the respondent depositof benefit
I the at the time when the evidence of the workman had
I it
started
7 In view of the foregoingdiscussion this court is of the view that this
is not a proper stage for movingsuch application

and the same beingdevoid of
any merits Accordinglyit standsdismissed

Announcedin the openCourti
o
T I
d1242O17 1
ammw m be Tue WM Distt amp

Industrial
Presiding
Sessionsludgej
Officer
Tribunalcum
W
Res er
IndustrialTribunal cm LabourCourt Panipat
Laban Genre
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
2
P2
PRef No614
Sh PyareLal amp
Present Shri RakeshSharmaAR for the

Sh DalipChandnaARfor the
ORDER
This Orderof mine shall disposeof an filed by the

application
that a powerof attorneyholder does not have the rightto
appearin the behalfof the executors In

boxon oflthe ofattorney
the present of the case Mr
facts WW2 is alleged
LakhvinderSingh to be a holder
a
ofattorney in favourof 107 workmenclaimantsThe saidwitness while
power
appearingas WW2 had also submitted the documents ExWW22 to
ExWW2108 This are admittedlynot executed by Mr Lakhvinder
asthe
Singh same of the other107 claimants who area partyto be
industrialdisputepending
adjudication before this
proceedings
ii7buns leged
xh
It statedthat one personcannot have knowledgeabout the disputeand
he of all the
doct1ents has further
claimants The applicant in the
O
happlica that every claimanthas to be examinedindividually regarding their
WWW aW5 conditions role and salaries Furtherthis claimants have
5
V
5 3
VT about their duties whether they dischargingthe
tgb crossexamined were
duty or thesupervisory
managerial role Further few of the employeesnamely
NareshKumar MahipalMange Ram after takingtheir VRS in 2008

have
LakhvinderSinghWW2 cannot deposeand authenticatethe documents
filed on behalf of differentclaimants
2 is givento the opposite

Notice of this application party who has
contestedthe application
on the ground
that WW2 Lakhwinder is the co
of the other 107 claimantsgroup

employee is well conversant
of workmenand
with the beingtheir coemployee

facts as well as circumstancesfaced
duringthe
of the respondent
employment and duly ampswd
to 5 he u evidence
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 r
all the
Moreover simil of claim under
ORIGINAL annemto
ll
PHHC, CHANDIGARH 5
1 U
Ll Qtl El 0v
t
Ital Read
T H
em 7W
l 64
KS
Sh PyareLal amp
7
V
108 The main disputed of the difference of claim is the same nalure
The management
filed the present without any justto linger
ground
on pretextor the other It is submitted that it is the
I
the matter on one
who are delayingthe proceedingsbyfiling friviolous

application of the
That the application be dismissedwith
cost
3 heard Ld ARs for both the partieson presentapplication

I have the
and have gone throughthe file of the presentapplication

I
4 is nothingbut abuse of process of law and

The presentapplication
not more then a perfect of delaytactics The case laws citations relied
6
upon in supportof the present

by the Ld AR for the respondentsmanagement
application
are not in presentcircumstances of the
applicable case as same are
iibl4i7bJ1
pecuniary to the disputewhich were essentiallycivil in nature and does
circumstances with regardto each and every individuals

ing atpeculiar
G
present
case relates to the service labour law matter of the
group of workmen with regardto differ from presenthaving

set of
similar with regardto all the claimants group
of workmen it does not lies in the mouth of the respondc

nt
to oppose tenderingaffidavit by Sh LakwinderSinghon behalf of

management
all the claimants by virtue of SpecialPower of attorney Does the purpose of
tenderingof evidence byway of affidavit of LakwinderSinghis nothingbut to
avoid the record

of court from becomingvoluminousinventing
the similar
set of
againand againby 108 times
and thus save the precioustime of
the court and helpto administration It is quiteobvious that gettingthe

narrated one by one by 108 personsindividualswould not
similarcircumstances
save an V P ur Pose the

as samewould burden on courts file unnecessaril and
makethe litigation
verboseand tortrolix Needlessto gS1Jd
thattsince
g the is
Anil Kumar Pandey
say true matter
2017.09.05 13:57
asOF THE
TRUE SCANNED COPY
industrialdisputeunderection2K of Industrial DisputeAct 1947 and not an
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
IIli
666
Sh PyareLal Vs TRL Riceland

3 Pvt
Ltd
individualdisputetenderingof affidavit on behalf of all the claimants by an
individualclaimant gettingstretch from a specialpower is not at

by any stretch of imagination as unlike an individualdispute
Us 2 A
his own circumstances in an industrialdisputeUS 2 K the talk

clearly explain
is with regard
to the grievancesof all the workman who are claiming
their difference of amount on similar patterncontainedin
allthe 1 to 108
Notonly this Mr Lakhwinder Singhis the Co workman of all the
claimants and is well known about the facts of the case as he is not only
H by the special
powerofattorney but also by the dated
W 5 by
the groupof workmen who are the claimantsin thegpresent
2 i
lg
foregoingdiscussionit is explicitthat thepresent
lh view
I
it standsdismissed
meritsdismissal Accordingly
in the open Court
to
M 72
Distt amp
SessionsJudge
PresidingOfficer
IndustrialTribunalcum
LabourCourt Panipat
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
67
Annexure P 3
VERMACULAR ANNEXURE
SHRI
DILIFCHANDNAS WRITTEN STATEMENT BEFORE
OFFICE OF DLC PANIPAT
Later on the claimants representative Shri Dilip Chandna
Advocate has requestedthat he wants to givehis statement which
is as follows
90 have passed in conciliation proceedingandasprovidedin
amendment ID Act I request to le claim statement before
Industrial cum Labour court Panipat a certicate in this regard
True
Advocate
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
S
Annexure P4
General Demand notice dated 23052013 regarding workmen
group Shri Payre Lal other Vs Tilda Private

Ms
Limited Village Sarnanabahu Karnal under the Industrial
DisputesAct 1947
Present 8112013
Shri Dilip Chandana workmen group representative
Shri Rakesh Sharma representativeof management
For conciliation both the sides were called for meetingson 706
2013 21062013 120720l3282013 1609
2013 7102013 and O8112013 Despiteefforts no conciliation
has been arrived at between the parties and periodof 90 days has
passed In such circumstances Mr Dilip Chandna workmen group
representativeinformed that he wants to le his demand notice
claim statementdirectlybefore the Labor Court PanipatTherefore
he has requested that he may be allowed to file the claim
statement before Labor Court Panipat
Therefore based on the statements of workmen group
representativeShri Dilip Chandna should

r
he desire he may le
claim statement before Labour Court Panipat
True translation
Advocate
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
67
Reportbv DLC to Labour Commissioner Haryana
SubiectReport for General notice dated 23052013 of
Workmen ShriPavreLal 8 OthersVs Ms Tilda Riceland Private Limited
VillageSamanabahuKarnal under Section 123 of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947
as above
ReferenceSubject
Reference above you are herebyinformed that this office had received a
General Demand Noticedated by Workmen ShriPayreLal Others
againstMs Tilda Riceland Private LimitedFor Conciliation both the sides were
called for on 7062013 21062013 12072013282013

meetings 23082013
16092013 7102013 and 08112013 On 08112013
group representativepresented and claimed
that full and final which

payout is shown in settlement dated 26082008 is less
and is not as per
In this case Managementwas also asked Managementtold that around a year
gone to the Honble HighCourt in this regard

before the workers have already
The paymentof full and final which was giventhroughchequeunder the VRS
Scheme was to all workmen Afterwards workers have also withdrawn

acceptable
their fund Both sides were

provident not readyfor conciliation on this matterln
this regardthe Officer Karnal has also givenhis replybefore Honble Court on 18
022010 Copyof replyis enclosed here for your reference No Claim seem proper
regardingthe written consent between two dated because that
agreementis not under Industrial Dispute

Act 1947
Therefore on the basis of the above no conciliation has been arrived
at The has said that he

workmenrepresentative wants to take this case before
otherauthorityThis is for your information and necessary action please
Enclosure as aboveDemand Letter and Reply

Commissioner
Sd DeputyLabour
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
Panipat
ORIGINAL V
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
p
S
r
lr
1
BEFORE THE IlONBLE 0
V MS NEENA CHOUDHARVDISTRICT Ki SESSIONS IUDGECUM
T
5
INDUSTRIALTRIBUNALCUMLABOURCOURT 5TH
OFFICER FLOOR
MINI GT ROAD PANIPAT HARYANA
SECRETARIAT
In the matter Reference No PR614

bearing
BETWEEN
107 Others
PyareLal amp
Through
ML Chandna
Senior Labour Laws
Advisor
38A Pritam Nagar
larna
Haryana
AND
M5 Tilda Riceland
Private Ltd Others
V
KM Stone NH8
Gurgaon
42
Haryana
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF TILDA

MS
LTD amp
RICELAND PRIVATE OTHERS HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO
AS THE TO
MANAGEMENT THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM DATED
NOVEMBER 22 2013 FILED BY 108 CLAIMANTS
PRELIMINARYSUBMISSIONS
I That the allegedDemands Claims of the Claimants are primafacie bad in
lawas the same seek to agitatethe Voluntary

Retirement Schemewhich
was Settlement under

into a
Section
123of
DisputesAct 1947 which has already
been accepted
by said
the
without protestor and they have allthe
It is the settled once
strictlyunder the said Scheme positionof law that
the have optedfor Voluntary

employees Retirement Scheme and have
the benefits under the said Schemesuch employees

an
raise industrial disputeagainstthe Management
qua the said
Retirement Scheme Hence challenging

the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
which was formulatedinto a legal valid and bindingSettlementdated
August26 of the IndustrialDisputesAct 1947

the provisions
under
2008
in law and
isuntenable thepresentClaims Demands
needs to be
dismissed
summarily
That the Honble HighCourt of Allahabad in the case of Hindustan Lever
Ltd GhaziabadUnit Vs PresidingOfficer Industrial Tribunal No V
llIeerLIt Another reportedas 2004 LLR 907 has held that when all the
optedfor Retirementand on acceptanceof
their option receivedthe out of the

accruing theyare
estoppedfrom challenging
the of the Schemeandas such the
HighCourt will not grant any relief since they have given up all their
previousrights Hence in view of the said Judgmentthe present
Demands Claims are untenable in law as the same seek to raise issues
and disputes the VoluntaryRetirement Scheme whichwas
of
agreedto by way a Conciliation Settlement dated August 26 2008
12 3 of the IndustrialDisputesAct 1947 wherein benefits

under Section
have alreadybeen acceptedby the said employeesin full and final
settlement of all claims and dues on the Management
That the Honble SupremeCourt of India in the case of National
Bank Vs Virendra Goel Others reportedas 2004 LR 267 and
the Honble High Court ofDelhi in the case of Tribal
Marketing Federation of India Vs Siddhartha Kumar
reportedas LLR 915 have held that opting Voluntary

2008
fora
Retirement Scheme by an and acceptance of such exercise
employee of
optionbythe Managementis deemed to be a concluded contract and the

7
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
of thelndianContract Act
provisions 1872 are to such
applicable an
arrangement
once
the have opted forVoluntaryRetirement
Scheme and benefits

therebyaccepted under the said the
SuperiorCourts have heldthat the said employee

cannot withdraw from
or
Retirement Scheme Hence in view of the
thesaid Voluntary
challenge
said the presentDemands Claims

Judgments are frivolousvexatious
anduntenable in law as the have accepted

the under
the Retirement
Voluntary which was basis of the
the
dated August26 2008 and thus have entered into a bindingContract
Further in accordance with the the employees

Judgments are
from challenging
estopped the said as theyhave alreadyopted
for the saidScheme and also accepted

benefits underthe same
That the HighCourt

Honble of Madrasin the case of EID Parry India
Ltd VsMN Padmnnabhan Another as 2008

reported LLR
1087 has that when a workman opts for VoluntaryRetirement

held
Scheme all his benefits includingGratuity that too under a
Settlement then he ceases to be a Workman under thendustrial
cannot a
DisputesAct and hence raise disputeunder the said statute
Thereforein View of
thesaid the who have
employees
instituted the presentClaim Petition are not Workman as defined under
Section
25 ofltheIndustrial DisputesAct resultantlycannot raise an
industrial dispute
as defined under Section 2 k of the said Act Hence
the allegedDemands Claims are untenable in law especially

in view of
the above mentioned Judgmentas also that the employees

challenging 72
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
VI That
that
been
the
first
under
Scheme
That
the said
in
claimants
the
theSuzuki
the
the
b enefits
Management
instance
accepted
Schemeonly
through be
Scheme
Voluntary Schemeinthe
toIndia
wish
present
challenged
HonbleHigh
industrial Claims
Retirement
underthe
afterthereafter
Claimants
Supreme
proceeded
the the
Court
dispute this
w
the
said
Claimants
wherein
Scheme
ith
principal said
before
Demands
deposit the
the
Punjab
only amp
India
have
thisin
benefits
received
the
Haryana
Judgment
reported
necessarily
through
Voluntary this
adjudication
they
Voluntary
accepted in LLR
Claim
already
required
required
adjudicate
byrapex Scheme
under
of
Court
have
egarding
athem
of ccepted
by the
has
law in
Scheme
Maruti
Singh
b held
said
has
the
them
yunder
already
lllaruti
the
matter an
Honble
may return
view
Ltd
to
Ahother
and
of Court
of are
aof
Honble
Schemea
mount Court as
are
can
Honble
of case
2011
R
the
the
etirement case
to
Man
1009 incase
upon
the Is
Suzuki India Vs State of Anr as Civil Writ
Petition
lilo3358 of 2008has held that in case an wishes to
employee
challengethe VoluntaryRetirement Schemethe benefits of which he has
alreadyacceptedthen he is necessarily depositthe

requiredto amount
receivedbyhim under the Scheme alongwith interest thereon beforethe
Court priorto the matter beingadjudicated

upon In the presentcasethe
rate determined annum Hence in view of the

of interest was 75 per
said Judgmentwhich is bindingon this Honble Tribunalin case the
Claimants the Retirement Scheme which

Voluntary was
incorporated
into a Settlement dated August 26 2008 then the said
73
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
VII
VIII them Sh
facie
ThatSh
Iclaimants
Arjun
untenable
That
Singh otherwise
with
Isham
and
Claimants
inapplicable
Singh
along Raj
JuglalShyam ShBhulla
lal
with
mandatorily
Singh before it
thereon
Sh
raised
the is
this
functions
Inder
Babu
presentRamStatement
Industrial
before
their
andSh
that Sh lltarta
is
industrial
behalf
tadjudication
he
DisputesChauhan
Sukhdev have
sreceived
Singh Shwholly
Balbir
Jagjit and
Sh
may
so be
even
the
any
Hansare
Narain the
to
as soprovisions
Singh
managerial
through
on
interest
them required
Lakhwinder
so
so ram Singh
toSingh
on deposit
Ramdhari
stated
Honble
so sodutiesconsequently
any Harbhajan
Manoj
wereMr performing
patently
Claim
amounts
ofAct ram Singh
p upervisory
roceedings
1947are
Tribunal so soSingh
by
prima
to in
agitate amounts that have been paidto them towardsGratuity
accordance with the Paymentof GratuityAct 1972 It is

pertinent
to
state that the said amount cannot be disputedbefore this Honble
Tribunal as jurisdictionthe
lacks Paymentof GratuityAct is a
complete Code for all contingencies

includinga
recovery and the

mechanismfor like Hence a claimfor Gratuitycannot
before this Honble Tribunal in these proceedings

be agitated
Further it is pertinent to state that the said issue has alreadybeen
agitated ltalia LearnedControlling under the

CL Authority
Paymentof Gratuity
Act 1972 ltarnalHaryanabythe Claimants
Hence
in view of the said the Claimants before
pending
claimof
AuthorityunderPaymentof GratuityAct Karnal regarding
their
74
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
IX the
as itDemand
That is of the
on prohibited
a perusal in thethe
No CivilProcedure
3u
ofnder claims
present oinRes
Statement
principle
lodged
Code these
Judicata it beagitated
is observed
enunciated
proceedings
ascannot under
Section10
the f1908 ofClaim
that the and claimed CasualLeave

encashmentwhereas under the law of the land there is no provisionfor
Leave
encashment Similarlythe Claim has without any basis or
foundation determined 16 daysEarned Leave encashment for everyyear
as to whether
ofservice irrespective or not the Claimant had availed
Earned Leave luringthe year Furthermorethe claim statement has
without any basisor foundation determined 8 days Sick Leave
encashmentfor every year ofserviceirrespectiveas to whether or not
the had availed

SickLeave during the year Such leave
encashment claims are imaginaryafterthought

both notlegaland as per
rulesThe wages for calculation considered in the claim statement filed
before the Honble Industrial Tribunal different to filed along

are
those
withWrit Honble HighCourt
statement
thereis a claim soughtunder Section if
of the Act the same
although is not legallytenableit is
pertinentto referthat claimants had earlier also filed a complaint
before DeputyLabour CommissionerPanipatagainstthe management

for
violation of section ZSFF of the Industrial disputeact After hearingthe
from both the partiesthe learned

arguments was pleasedto
dismiss the and did not found any merit in the complaint
Furthermore Claim statement filed before this court demands also
VRS for balance years of service ie till the age of

D
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
ie 58 years whichtooprima
superannuation facie is imaginary
without
any basis misconceived

illegaland untenable
In this regard it would not be out of placeto state that the Claims
demands as set out in the Writ petitionbefore the Honble HighCourt of
Punjabamp those in these

aresimilarto the
demands in these before this Honble industrial tribunal
clearlyreflect divergence in claims and contentions

and discrepancies
To
illustratein the case of PyareLal so Sh Surat ram the ofclaim
amount shown in Writ petitionbefore Honble HighCourt is Rs16l452
before this Tribunal is for

whereashisClaim an amountof Rs 702227
in dhari so Sh larta ram the difference of claim
amount shown in Writ before Honble HighCourtis Rs164342
whereas before this Tribunal is for an amount of Rs 736784
Hence primafacie the Claim filed before this Honble Tribunal is false
and fabricated
afterthought
That the alleged

industrial dispute
filed before this Honble Tribunal the
by
Claimantstermed as General Demand Notice under Section 2 K of the
Industrial DisputesAct 1947 in view of the Order dated February2S
2013 passedbythe Honble HighCourt of Punjab84 is without
any basis or foundation It isthe settled law and practice

that the
may raise an industrial disputebefore the Learned
Officer under Section 10 of the DisputesAct 1947 Thereupon
if the Government
appropriate is of the opinionthat any disputeexists or
is it may
apprehended at anytime byan Order in writing refer a dispute W
76
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
XI Tribunal
issued
the
Charter
the
That
Hence or Mr
he
Conciliation
Advocate
Claimants
Tribunal
maintainable
Board
Panipatthat
Tribunal
Industrial
days alleged
although by
d the
made
the
industrial
isfor as3theConciliation
Claimants
ChandnaBased
therefore
of
irectly
D
Whereas
predicated
isputes
proceedings
promotingthere
Charter
However
appropriate
by
this
Claimants is
foundation
which
had
the
Advocate
exercisingIn
behalf
rGovernment
Reference
ecorded
Reference
raised
Reference
Demand
such
provisionshisNovember
and
the
his
proceedingsthe
Order
Order
industrial
Claimantshave
Claimants
statement
these
Order
adjudication
duly
legal
legalvoid in
claimants
hadab
under
the
facts
continued
provision
rrefer
adjudication
considered
directly
ight
Whereas
by before
before
the
and
that is
instituted
approach
2013of
directlyathe
the
this
disputebeing
dispute
by 10 DLC
Notification
facts
Industrial
much
Learned
bcircumstancesLabour
permitsofthese
ycircumstances
Chananathis
the
and
the
and
c
tonot
Court thedispute
Tribunal the
Demands
a been an
circumstances
has was
of to
a basis
for raise Aa
under
and
the on
case on
the
filedon
ct are
Tribunalano
1947 a nowas
on
nonest
same
for
of view
for
of anan
or
Government
for of
ofthe law to
of8 any
way whatsoever
beyond
inllthe
nature
Section
initioin Mr as
this
to
officea
nonest
Honble
Honble
of as
90
their
I
proceedings
on November 22 2013 but till October 9 2015 ie for a
periodof approximately
two years he did not providethe Management
a copy of the of Claim as also the documents in supportofthe
Claim in the the Management on the hearingdated 77

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
12 2014 filed an under Rule 10B 1 and 2
Application of the
IndustrialDisputesRules 1958 for supplyof the documents annexures
which were repeatedly mentioned in the claim statement

This Honble
Courtonce again directed the Advocate to supplythe same
That as per 1 of the Industrial DisputesRules 1957it is
categorically that while referringan industrial disputefor

stated
adjudication
to a LabourCourt Tribunal or National Tribunal the
Government shall direct raisingthe disputeto file a Statement
Claim completewith relevant documents list of and

of
witnesseswith the Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal within 15
daysof the of the order of Reference and also forward

receipt a copy of
such each one of the OppositeParties involved in the
dispute
That further as per Rule 10B 3 of the Industrial
Where the Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunalas the case may
be finds that the party raisingthe disputethoughdirected did not
forward the copy of the of claim

statement to the oppositeparty or
it shall to the concerned partyto the copy of

parties
to the oppositepartyor partiesand for the said
the statement or
for any other sufficient cause extend the limit for filing the
time
statement under subrule written statement under
1 or
2 by
an
additionalperiodof 15 days
That keepingin view the above said provisionsalsothe claim
matter barred and bogus

stands
time
78
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
g
The Advocate of the the relevant documents

annexure to the onlyon October 9 2015 despitenumerous
instruction from the court valuable Judicial time and that

therebywasting
ofthe llanagementsit clearly that the Claimants have no
legal valid or tenable case in their support in these proceedings
VRS which
challenging was formulated into a legal valid and binding
dated August26 2008 under the of the Industrial

provisions
Act 1947 is untenable in law and the present

Disputes claimsdemands
needs to be summarily
dismissed
Without prejudice
to the above mentioned LegalSubmissionsthat go
Preliminary to
the rootof the allegedindustrial disputeas beingillegaland not maintainable

the
parawisereplyto the Statement of Claim is as under
1 The assertionsmade Claimants in the openingparagraph

bythe to the
Statement of Claimreads as under
Since the conciliation proceeding in response to the General
notice US 2 K of the LD Act 1947 has beenfailed before
Deputy Labour Commissioner Panipat between of

theGroup
workman the
I
as
Ki the
did not agree for settled the
the aforesaid group of workmen thereforethe Ld DeputyLabour
Panipat 8112013 has

advised
the of
workmen to file the claim statement before Court

thisHonble
in view of the under subsection amp
2 3 2A Rt 10C of
the Industrial Dispute AmendmentAct 2010 Act Hence the
aforesaid Groupof Workmen US 2 K of industrial DisputeAct 1947
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
is theclaim statement beforethis HonbleCourt Copyof
submitting
recommendationletterCertificate of conciliation proceeding
dated 8112013 issued DeputyLabour Commissioner

Panipat
byLd
and other documents are beingattached for the kind consideration of
this Honble Court
Whereas the aforesaid contention of the Claimants as set out has no
legalbasis or foundation whatsoever Hence the adjudication
based
proceedings on such premise as set out inthe Preamble
of the
paragraph of Claim is bereft of any legalmerit
Thus the allegedindustrial disputeraised by Mr
Chanana Advocate on behalf of 108 Claimantsis patentlyillegal
misconceived and contraryto the provisions

of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947 and therefore deserves to be dismissedat the threshold of
these proceedings
The BriefFacts in the Statement

as mentioned of Claim are repudiated
unless herein admitted

specifically it is pertinentto state that the
Settlement dated August 26 2008 under Section 12 3 of the
Industrial DisputesAct the

1947which was duly accepted by
Claimants in the presence of the Learned Conciliation Officer and
thereafterbenefitsaccruingunder the said Settlement

werealso
received ancIacceptedby them isa validand
underthe law It is noteworthyto mention that the Claimants had
issued a Demand Notice dated October 4 2007 It is on receiptof the
said Demand Notice that Conciliation proceedings

were held that
culminated in a Settlement dated August

Tripartite 26 2008 before
Mr CL ltalia then Learned Conciliation Officer Government of

80
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
II
Haryana that the negotiations were undertakenbetween the
the Claimantsbefore his goodoffices
That duringthe said representations

were submitted
also letters dated July10 and August22 2008 Thereafterbased on
mutual discussionsthe partiesarrived at a Settlement dated August
26 2008dulyexecutedibetween the Claimantsand theManagement
in the of the Learned Conciliation Officer under Section 12

I
presence
3 Act 1947 which is

of the IndustrialDisputes legaland bindingon
the
partieslnthe circumstancesthe Claimants cannot now seek to
wriggle
out of the said Settlement
It is further deniedthat the Managementunder the Settlementdated

4
26 2008 has soughtto retrench the Claimants from the
services of It is to opting
the imperative mention that
for a VoluntaryRetirement Scheme is deemed to be a resignation
from and
service a retrenchment which is settled
not
a well legal
principlein based both on statute and
precedents
Further it is noteworthy
to mention that
heClaimants alongwith the
Office Bearers of the representingTrade Union have signedthe
without
Settlement any coercion or undue influence and in the
presence of Conciliation Officer Mr CL lltalia Thus
after the
accepting under the said the Claimants
Scheme
cannot belatedly the said Settlement on alleged
challenge grounds
of
illegality 81
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Furthermore it is denied that the had closed its
andshould
have the Claimants in accordance
with Section 25 O of the Industrial Disputes

Act 1947 in fact the
was
sold to another Companyaround
September
2010 the said Settlement was arrived and
executed between the Management

and the Claimants ie aftera
Perm Ofaim TWO Yea

LEl15iElf
definition of as set out in Section 2cc statesthe
which
permanentclosingdown of a placeof
The assertion oflthe

Claimants that The Managementhad filedtheir
Replybefore the Court of HaryanaChandigarh
wherein it was averred that in casethere is a the

disputeregarding
bonafide nature of the Settlement that would be yet another
industrialdisputewhich the Government may refer for adjudication
However it is that
noteworthy in the facts and ofthis
case the Government has referred for

appropriate not adjudication
any such as referred to In the absence of a Reference Order
to that effect the presentproceedingsare a

nullity in law
cannot be adjudicated
consequently upon
to
Further that The Managementhas
matter as per the offer the llracel

of
AgreementLetter dated 22082008 and the
letter dated are without any factual or

legalbasis or
foundation The same are mythical imaginary and concocted
Retirement Scheme which was formulated

Voluntary a
legalvalid
and bindingSettlement dated August 26 2008 under the Section
8
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
123 of the Act 1947 in presence of Conciliation
Officer is the final and binding

Settlement basiswhich all the full and
final payoutshavebeen done bythe responding

management
8 It is to
imperative thatthe Settlement datedAugust26 2008
arrived athas been executed in accordance with 12 3 of the
industrial DisputesAct 1947 Further the amounts paid to the
Claimants are in excess of theywere eligibleto under the

theamounts
statute in the as mentioned in the
Judgments
Further view
of
Submissionsthe Claimants are estopped

Preliminary from raising
any
the Retirement Scheme which

Voluntary
dispute
V
a Settlement dated August 26 2008 under

was into
Section Act 1947byMr CL

3 of the Disputes Kalia
the then Learned Officer Government of Haryana
Hence as the Claimantshave already the benefits under the

accepted
said Scheme and are not deemed to be Workman the
Industrial Act 1947due to such acceptance Hence the
allegedindtfstrial
dispute and the demands of the Claimant are
patently and untenable in law

illegal
Demand No 1
A Contents A of Demand No 1 of the Demand Notice are wrong
and denied it is that the Claimants are still workingwith Ms

repudiated
Tilda Pvt Ltd In fact the Claimants have since the benefits
accepted
under the dated August26 2008 executed before the Learned
Conciliation Karnal Haryana and

Officer thus thereis no
employer
employee betweentheManagementand the
relationship Claimants Further
in view of the mthe9a9f EIDls3Y

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
India Ltd Chennai Vs MN as 2008 LLR
84Another reported
Padmanabhan
1087 the Claimants are no longerworkmen underSection

as stipulated 2 s
oftheIndustrial DisputesAct 1947 and thus the presentClaim Demand is
untenabe in law
Contents of B of Demand
No 1 of the Statement ofCaim are
misconceivedand hence It is denied for want of that
the Claimants approached

the Labour Law after obtaining
Specialist copy of
theOrder dated 26 2013 passedby the Honble

February High
Court of
El HaryanaFurther it is denied for want of that the
passeda Resolution dated llay 1 2013 at ltaran Park Karnal
Haryana based uponthe advice givento them bythe Labour Law
it is denied any or
was fraud while executingthe
misrepresentation
Settlement dated August26 2008 it is pertinentto that the said
Settlement was dulyexecuted and signedby the Claimants voluntarilyand
bythe Office Bearers of the Trade Union

also signed representing
them
in view of the assertion that the Settlement was is

theabove malade
specifically Further in view of the fact that the Claimants are not
Workman the Industrial DisputesAct 1947 as

have
to acceptall the benefits
proceeded under the Settlement dated August26
2008 hence the allegedClaims are untenable both in law and facts
to mention that the Claimants

Furthermore it is imperative
arepleading
ignoranceof law and basingtheir presentClaims on the assertion that they
were Labour Laws prior to signingthe said Settlement

unaware regarding
The said assertion is and repudiated of law

asignorance is excuse
no
underthe law Juris Non Excusat Also the Claimants entered and
executed the Settlement dated August26 2008 of their own free will before
84
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
V
the LearnedConciliation Officer a statutoryAuthority

under the said statute
and have all the benefits accruingto them under the said
Settlement
of C of Demand No 1 of the Statement of Claim are
wrong and denied It is pertinent

to mention that the dated
August26 2008 wasin furtherance July10 and August

to the letters dated
22 2008 Furtherthe was in accordance with the provisionsof
the industrial DisputesAct 1947 It to mention that the

is imperative
Claimants have voluntarily

executed the said Settlement before the Learned
Conciliation Officer and have also the benefits accruingunderthe

accepted
Settlement The dated August 22 2008 was a mere
proposalthat is during negotiationsin fact the Claimants
to the sameas
themselves have referred conditional agreementletterit
by no stretch of imaginationwas the final agreement
In viewof the aforesaid facts the Claimantsare the

challenging
Settlement dated August26 2008 to

Furtherit is imperative mention that
as and the Claimantsthe Settlement was in

agreedupon by
accordance with theprovisions

of the industrial DisputesAct 1947 and thus
all the payableunder theSettlement dated August26 2008 were
in accordancewith the law

computed It is essential to mention that despite
the beingmade strictlyin accordance

with the provisions
of the
excess
Statutes the Claimants have received an amount in than what they
were
eligibleor entitled to under the law Hence in view of the said factual
are
positionthe of the Claimants in the corresponding
paragraph
untenable and hence
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Contents D of Statement of Claim are wrong and denied
of paragraph it is
vehemently that the Managementcaused any loss or cheated or
deceivedthe Claimants as the Settlement dated August

allegedbyexecuting
26 2008 with them In fact it is pertinentto state that the Settlement
arrived at and executed was done in furtherance of the negotiations

as
referred to in the dated July 10 and August22 2008 between the
Managementand theClaimants
it is essential that the Settlement was executed in

Further to
accordance with the of the industrialDisputes

provisions Act 1947 and thus
the amounts payabletothe Claimants were calculatedon the basis of the
Settlement Furthermorethe Claimants have not onlyoptedand signedthe
Settlement voluntarily
but also accepted
the benefits accruing
to them under
the said Settlement theiracceptanceto the terms

clearlymanifesting
and of thesaid in view of the factual position
the contents of the corresponding are

paragraph denied
Contents of E of Demand No
paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim are
wrong and denied it is imperative

to mention that the Claimants have raised
serious
of a criminal nature vide
allegations contents of the corresponding
Furtherthe Claimantshave cast aspersionson

paragraph the integrityof the
DepartmentGovernment
Vtabour of Haryana and its vide
functioning the
correspondingparagraph The said allegationsand aspersionsare
vehementlyrepudiated It is imperativeto mention that the Labour
DepartmentGovernment of Haryanavide their Written Statement dated
filed before the Honble HighCourt of Punjabamp

18 2010 in
Haryana
Writ Petition No 15640 of 2009 filed by the Claimants challenging
the
Settlement dated August 26 2008 have clearlystated that the said

86
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Settlement was executed voluntarily
and no coercion or undue influencewas
exercised while optingfor andsigningthe said Settlement The Labour
Department Government of Haryanahave also submitted that the
dated August26
Settlement 2008 was and proper and in accordance
valid
with of the Industrial Disputes
provisions Act 1947 Furtherthe Written
Statement also states the letter dated August 22 2008 was simplya
that
putforthby the petitionersto
proposal the it by no stretch of
maybe styled
imagination as a settlement that
clarifies No
ever
or discussed in the course of Conciliation
produced
beforethe
proceeding officer It was also clarified bythe State
Government that there was no closure at the Establishment
and that the Claimants duly acceptedthe benefitsunder the Voluntary

Schemewhich was as the Settlementdated August
formulated 26
2008
It is to
imperative mention that the Claimants vide the
have was
paragraph that the
admitted dated August26 2008
them as also by
signedbythe Office Bearers of the Trade Union representing
all the Claimants Therefore in accordancewith the principles

enunciated by
the Honble Supreme Court of India as mentioned in the Preliminary
Submissions abovethe are bound in

by the said Settlement a
manner such as two partiesmay be bound by a Hence

Contract
inviewof
the well settled legalprinciplesthe Claimants cannot agitatethe
dated August26 2008 which has been executed by them in the

voluntarily
presence of the Learned Conciliation Officer Government of Haryana out of
their own free will Further it is imperative

to mention that the Claimants
themselveshave accepted
that the llanagementhave paidtheir
Respondent
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
11 dues
that
are neither
Claimants
signatures
Regrettably andIt
order
compensation
immediately
Contents the is
entitled
the Claimants
a clear
blowing
are hot
onthem
nor and
example
on
more in
Demand
full
terminal
cold
and
the
ofthe
atthe
acceptingfinal
the
from
facts
benefits
the
Claimants
1ofanti
the
said
payment
corresponding
same the Settlement
dishonest
The been
Management
receiptssaidand
toh
contradicting
paragraph ave
which
paid to
obtained
the
alleged
they
case are
own
assertions
the
motives
in
Claimants
of toextort
and
a clear
other
F of manifestation
money No oftheir
time
have
circumstances
Statement
not assertions
and Claim
ofthe
of ulterior
their of
wrong and denied it is pertinent

to state that the Settlement dated August
26 2008 was not onlyexecuted in of letters dated July10 and
August 22 2008but also in accordance with provisionsof the Industrial
Act
Disputes the said Settlement was signedand by
the Claimants out of theirown freewill and thus theyare bound bythe said
Settlement they have alreadyacceptedthe benefits the said

as
under
Settlement
It is deniedthat the Management

specifically caused any loss to the
has
Claimants muchlessvto
an amount amounting per Claimant
to Rs 5 8
lakhs
The Claimants are proofoftheir such assertion Theyare
putto strict
to submit cogentpositiveevidence in supportoftheir claims and contentions
Furthermoreit is vehemently
denied that the Management
any fraud in the Settlement dated August26

executing 2008 Claimants in
Writ
petitionfiled before
the Honble HighCourt had also that
the Managementcommitted fraud and the matter needed to be investigated

38
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
TheLearned HighCourt Judgein his order held A prayer has been madeiin
the petitionthat the matter should be investigated policeand by the

by the
CB I am not to acceptsuch prayer

inclined without any valid basis it is also
denied that the Claimants any to the Management

representation
regarding the Settlementdated August26

challenging 2008 It is pertinent
to
state that
theManagement has fully satisfied and compliedwith the
Settlement dated August26 2008 and thus it is denied that theClaimants
have suffered due to the execution ofthe said Settlement
it
isalso that the presentClaimis a mode of extorting
further monies from to which the Claimants neither

theManagement are
entitled nor eligibleto as theyhave alreadyaccepted under the

the benefits
Settlement dated August26 2008 The demand that the Managementbe
directed to recalculate and settle full and final dues of the Claimants is
untenable Theonus of proofin this regardrests entirely on the
who on the Management it is also

are makingfalse and baselessclaims
denied that the were retrenched vide the VoluntaryRehrement
Scheme and August it is imperative

dated 26 2008 to mention
thatthe preliminary
step on the part of the employee
of opting for the R
Scheme and on benefits therein the legalconsequence

accepting is that the
action is deemed to be a Resignationat the end of the and not a
at the end ofthe employer

retrenchment
Demand No2
are
of Demand No
Contents 2 of the Statement of Claim misconceived and
denied It is pertinent
to state that the Settlement dated August26 2008
arrived at and executed between the Claimants and the Managementwas
entered
voluntarily into by the Claimants in the presence of the Learned
8
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Conciliation Officer Karnal Haryana Further the said was also
endorsed bythe Office Bearers ofthe Union representing

Trade the Claimants
their signatures
by appending on the Settlement Hence it is vehemently
denied that the dated August26 2008 was not in
with what was mutually upon between the Managementand the
As stated herein above the action of the Claimants to opt for the
Scheme
VoluntaryRetirement as per industrial is
jurisprudence an action
deemed to be a Resignationat the end of the Claimants and not anact of
retrenchment at the end ofthe Management
it is also denied thatthe has not complied

with the letters dated
July10 and August

22 2008 the Settlement dated August26
2008 In fact the said under Section 123 of JD Act datedAugust
26 2008 is in furtherance ofthe said two letters
Demand No3
of Demand No 3 of the Statement of Claim are wrong and denied
it is to
pertinent that mentioned in the Preliminary the
Submissions
state as
saiddemand of theClaimantsis barred by principlesof Res Judicata as
enunciated 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Further it
is denied that the has not paidGratuityto the Claimants

in
accordancewith the Paymentof Act
Gratuity 1972 and the Claimants are put
to strict proofof their such assertion Further stated hereinabove the

as
Claimants have alreadyagitatedtheir Claim Gratuity the
who is fullyceased
AuthorityLabour Departmentlltarna
LearnedControlling
on
of the matter and various have taken placein their office
proceedings this
matter Consequentlyany claim towards Gratuity before this Honble
Authorityis misconceivedand illegal

I0
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Demand No 4
Contents of Demand No 4 of the Statement of Claim are wrong and denied It
is specifically that the Managementthen closed the factoryie

repudiated
August 2008 thus wascovered under the provisionsof Section 250 or
Section 25 FF of the DisputesAct 1947 in fact the Management
sold the factory

to another after a periodof about two years The
Claimants have againcast aspersionson the Learned Conciliation Officer and his
which is a serious and thus theyare put to

allegation proofof
strict
their such baselessand motivated allegationsIt is reiterated thatoptingfor a
RetirementScheme is deemedto be
Voluntary a at theend of the
Resignation
Claimants and not an

actof Retrenchment at the end of the Management it is
deniedthattheManagementthen closed down the factoryand
vehemently
thus was
to pay compensation
under Section 25 FF or Section
250
of the industrial Act 1947 In fact the said factual positionof the
Managementhas been reiterated in the Written Statement filed bythe Labour
the Honble
DepartmentGovernment of Haryanabefore HighCourt of Punjab
amp
Haryanain Writ Petition No 15640 of 2009 filed bythe Claimants challenging
the Settlementdated 26 2008 The Claimants are put to strict roof of
their assertionthat it is
diefactoryof the Managementwent through
also deniedthat the Settlementdated August 26 2008 has caused grave
to the Claimants
injustice It is pertinent
to state that Claimants themselves
the
have executedthe Settlement out of their own
free will Hence the allegations
of the that they have been exploitedat of the

the
Managementis vehemently
denied It is also denied that the actions of the
are covered under the definition of

Management Labour
Unfair as
defined under Section2 ta of the industrial DisputesAct
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
12 That the averments of the Claimants that they are very poor persons and
unable to is denied for

and feed their family
meet
thedayto dayrequirement
want of knowledgeHowever some claimants such asSubhashchand so Sh
Pyarelal ArjunJhaso Sh Mahender Jha Sushil kumar so Sh Dass
Pawankumar so Sh Mam Chand Amar nath so Sh ram JagjeetSingh

Bhagat
so Sh NarainSinghRampalso Sh Brahamjeet
ShyamLalso Sh Bansi lal
Ramdhari so Sh larta ram Singhso Sh Arjansingh so
Sh Sadhu ram as known to us appearedto have lied in their claim statement as
theyare haveworked in various capacities

in different organisations
PRAYER
it is therefore most respectfully

submittedthat the Claims Demands of the
Claimants are mischievousand malafidebesides beingillegal Furtherthe present
Statement of Claim is frivolous and filed with the sole intention of extortingmoney
Management
fromtheRespondent
in made hereinabove it is most

of the prayedthat
respectfully
this Honble Tribunal may to

bepleased
i Hold that the present Notice as also the Claim Statementis bad
in law as the are no longerWorkman under section 25 of the
ndustria Act and therefore

Disputes cannot file a demandnotice under
section 2llt ofthe IndustrialDisputesAct andor agitatethe matter as an
industrial disputeas held in HighCourt of

theJudgmentof the Honble
Madras in the case of EID Parry India Ltd ChennaiVs lVIN
Another
reported
as 2008 LLR 1087 wherein it has been
held that under Voluntary Scheme havebeen

Retirement
7
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
accepted is not
the employee as defined under Section
2 5
of the Industrial DisputesAct 1947 and hencecannot raise an industrial
disputeunder thelsaidAct
Hold that on
thebasis of the settled legalpositionby various Courts
including SupremeCourt
theHonble of India wherein it was also held in
the case
ofMan SinghVs Maruti Suzukiindia ltd and another as
2011 LLR 1009 that that in an industrial disputewherein a Voluntary
Retirement Scheme
beenchallengedafter the Claimants have
acceptedthe benefits under the said Scheme the Claimants are
requiredto depositthe principalamount

necessarily by them
under the Scheme before the Honble Tribunal before
adjudicate
upon the allegedIndustrial dispute Hence in
view of Judgmentfor claimants to challengethe Voluntary

thelsaid
Retirement Scheme through
the presentDemand Notice this tribunal be
pleasedto order theclaimtns to refund the entire amount already
receivedand accepted
bythem under the Schemebefore any
adjudication
may be proceeded
with bythis Honble tribunal
Dismissthe General demand notice frivolous and bogus
cost
filed byClaimantswith exemplary
Claimdemand
FOR ANDON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEllENT OF

MS TILDARICELAND PVT LTD
AUTHORIZEDSIGNATORY
73
Place Gurgaon
TI l i
Dated November 25 2015 P
U
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
In
1lhat
IN para
Re
to
Reioinder Court
Itis
the 1 of
noLal
Replication
Directors
Act
Stone
OFFICERamp
to
amp
1947Ram
notice
Workmen
the
Others
INDUSTRIAL
in view
Delhi JaiPur
the
Sarnana
by Babu
of written
order
the dated2622013 Workmen Riceland
evasive
byits
Honble
I
Reply
Industrial
High
Presidcnt8z
Disputc
Punjab
R iccLand
DemandHaryana namely
Chandigarh DisttKarnal
Group CUll passed
through
I
ryaxecouRT
42KM
General
Tilda
Group
Pre0bjcctions
So ltd
under 122oo1M5Tilda total1y
iglllla
are
Ltd
LD
PANlPAT
THE
Ltd
lMs of orsurar riches
ShofasNT1s
Ms NEENA written statement
CHAUDHRY
of TRIBUNAL
of statement
DISTT
Ms of Tilda
LABOUR US Private
2
JUDGE
COURT K of
and absolutely
misleading incorrectlhc
claimants vorlqnenhave primafacie as
observedby the Honble Courtof Punjabamp
Haryana in Viewof order
dated This Honble Highcourt has got the jurisdiction
to
2622013
decidedthe Claim
present and Claim is well
its form
the contents of para no1l of preliminary of the

objections
IIllhat are
and absolutely
incorrect Averments para nolI of
evasivetotally of
of the writtenstatementis baseless in the
objections light of order dated
2622013 by the Honble Court amp
of PunjabHaryana
m
I11Ihatthe contents of paranoIH of the written statement

and
ofpreliininary
objections
incorrect para
are
totally
evasive of noIl1of
of the written statementis baseless
in the
lightof order dated
2622013 passed
bythe HonbleHigh Courtof Purabamp
Haryana
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
I
Ld
recommendation
the
VI1lThat
2622013
evasive
VThat
That
evasive
the
the
the contents
contents
thecontents
letter
thecontents
thecontents
Labour
contentsthe
the para
para
para
para
para
para
and
the
and written
thewritten
Honble
Honb1e
and
the
and
Court
and
and
writtenstatement
statement
Court
claimants and
amp
conciliation
10 incorrect
incorrectother
incorrect
incorrect
oof
is is
is the
baseless
the amp
baseless the
the
documentsbeforethis
Averments
Averments
in
in
dated
submitted
thewritten
the
thewritten
ofthe para
para
orderdated
written
8112013
written statement
statement
statement
sorder
statement
passed
evasive
XThat
evasive
under
evasive
2622013totally
evasivettotaLly
otally
prelirninary
Deputy
b
totally
the
tota1ly
ypassed
gtotally
the
passedHonble
totally mCommissioner
objections
misleading
m mmisleading
isleading
by
isleading
isleading
of
workmen
oi para
High absolutely
High Court
absolutely
panipat
preliminary
preliminary
preliminary
preliminary
incorrect
Punjab
proceeding Haryana
objections
objections
incorrect
have objections
fHaryanaobjections
Chandigarh
already light the
the oflatest
written
the
Chandigarh
written
light
the 2622013
issued
noV1
Honble
Copy
order dated
tatentent
by
procedureof Q
I
Xlhat
are
VI
IVThat sub
VlIThat S oCerticate
of fof
ofof
2
ofof 2AV
noX
and
noV
noVH
noIX
noIV
noVlof
noVIH
of
of
of
of
of
of of C of inAct As
inofof
of
of
view
perof light
of
of
of of
the
of noX are
are
are
are
of
Court and the of the same to Sh RakeshShama AR for the
are
provided
respondents
XlThat the contents of para no X1 of statementare

the written evasivetotally
incorrectAverments
of thispara are aer with legal
thought
colourand advisedjustto defeattherightful
claimof the Workrnens
Replyon Merits
1Thatthe para no1 the WIll statementare evasivetotatlymisleading
and incorrectwhilethe para No1 of claim Statement is
correctreaffirmedampreassertedIn the lightof the amendmentunder sub
1
2 of 2 8210
Section
C of the Act it is clearthatthe averments of this para
are
baseless in theeyes of law and misleading and incorrect

absolutely
totally
2 That thecontents of parano2 of
and thewritten are evasive
15
incorrect while the
absolutely para no2 of the claim
Statement
correctreaffirmed ampreasserted
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
theThat
tlLe
the amp
para ofand
statement
That contents
thewritten
with
while
correct para
ofthecolourand
incorrect
statement amp
amp
is wrong
whilethe towritten
reassertedAverrnents
of incorrect
the the
defeatsthence
he
claim to3 6
nlTliCu
oevasivis
V V
amp6claimafter
no7
thought advisedjust
para tatement
paras
para
dStaement
enied
j
totally
3
7 45 are 6 the are
legal 3 3 45
reafrrned
no 6 no7 ofand rightful
of are
no3 claim
Vwhile
45of
of
Pl 1
8Thatpara no8 of thewrittenstatement is wrong incorrectand hencedenied while

the parawhile the para no8 of the claim Statement
is
correctreafrrned amp
reasserted
to Demand
Replication No1
A Thatthe contents of paranoA of thewrittenstatementof DemandNo1 are

evasivetotally and
misleading incorrectis
whilethe para wrong incorrectandhencedenied
of DemandNo1 of theclaim Statement is correct re
aftlrrnedamp
reasserted
B Thatthecontents of paranoB of thewrittenstatementof DemandNo1 are evasive

totally incorrect
absolutely
is wrong incorrectandhencedenied while
the para of DemandNo1 of theclaim SlI2lII16l1tis correct
reafnned
amp
reasserted
C Thatthecontents of para noC of thewrittenstatementof DemandNo1 are evasive

totall and
y misleading absolutely incorrect
i s wrong incorrectand hencedenied while
the para of DemandNo l jnftheclaim correct reafErrned
amp
reasserted 1
D Thatthecontents of paranoD of thewrittenstatementof Demand No1 are evasive

tota11y and incorrect
absolutely i s wrong incorrect hencedenied while
and
the para of DemandNo1 of theclaimStatement is correct reafrmed
amp
reasserted
E Thatthecontents of para noE of thewrittenstatementof DemandNo1 are evasive
totally and absolutely is wrong incorrect
incorrect andhencedenied while
the para of DemandNo1 of theclaimStatement is correctreaffirmed
F Thatthe contents of para noF of thewrittenstatementof DemandNo1 are evasive

totailymisleadingand absolutelyincorrectis wrong incorrectarrdhence denied while
the para of Demand No1 of theclaim Statement is correct reafrrned
amp
reasserted
v
to DemandNo2
Replication
That the contents of written statement of Demand No2 are evasivr totally
and
misleading absolutely incorrect wrong and hence denied the
is incorrect vnle
paraof Demand No2 of theclaim Statementis correctreafinined amp
reasserted
to
Demand
No3
Thatthe contents of writtenstatementof Demand No3 are evasivetotally

misleading
and is wrong incorrectand hence
incorrect denied whilethe
para of DemandNo3 of the Statement
claim amp
is correct reaffirmed
reasserted
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
to Demand
No4
V
That the contents of writtenstatementof Demand it

and No4 are evasive
incorrectis wrong incorrect
absolutely and hence denied whilethe
para of No4 of theclaimStatement is correct
reafnned
reasserted
IxiIzrofthewritten
para is
para wrong andhencedenied vvhile
while the paraincorrect
no7 of the claim is
correctreaffirmed amp
reasserted
PrayerPara andits subparas i ii iii clauseof the writtenstatement

totally is
andabsolutely in thelightof submission
incorrect made above
as
well as in thelightof in lightof order dated2622013
the by the Honble
passed
amp
HighCourtof Punjab Chandigarh
Haryana
Itis therefore thatthedemandnotice statement

beaccepted forin prayed
as prayed thedemandnoticeandclaim maypleases
statement
Itis prayed
accordingly
Verication of Worlnnen
Veried atKarnalon this

8 dayo1Iaul6that
thecontents
of parawise
reply
to PO and on merits
are true andcorrectto our
knowledgeNotinghas
been concealed
therein
ThroughMLChandna LabourLaws Advisor DalipKumar Chandna MPA

LLB 38A PritamNagarKarnalAuthorised of workmen
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE itivocvir isIx
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
2
W lvvvl07 7
P
Ref No 614
PyareLal amp
Others versus Ms Tilda Riceland Ltd Knl
Present Shri DalipChandnaAR for theworkmen

Shri Rakesh Sharma AR for the respondent
Replicationled Copygiven The followingissues are framed from
the pleadings
ofthe parties
1 Whetherthe settlementdated26808 was in the true spiritof the offer
conditional agreementdated22808 and the
has failed to implement

the same If yes to what relief the workmen
are R
entitled toOPW
2 Whetherthe No 1 to 4 of the group of workmen are justied
andvalid If yes thenwhatrelief theyare entitledtoOPW
3 Whether the group of workmen is entitled any difference of claim as
per Annexure1 to Annexure l08OPW

4 Whetherthe claimants optedfor VoluntaryRetirement Scheme and
K
received all the benets under the scheme if so the
claimants are required the principalamount received by

to deposit
underthe above said schemeOPM

them
5 Whether the claimants ceases to be a workman US 23 of the lD
Act RetirementScheme If so
optedVoluntary its effectOPM
after
6 is applicable
Whether the rejudicata in respectof Demand No 3 ie
GratuityOPM
7 Whether the claimants are not a workmannames as mentioned in the
preliminary No VII
submission replyOPlI
8
1
Relief
No other issue is pressed
or claimed nor arises from the pleadings
of
the parties Now for entire evidence of the workmen the caseto come up on
19216 PF DM if any be led within three daysand dasti summons be given
to the partyconcerned
if so desired
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
El
5
377 Groupof Workmen namelyie 1PyareLal S0 Sh Surat
Barani Ram Village
PO Saman Bahu DisttKamal 2 Lakhwinder SinghSo Sh Harbajan Singh VPO
SarrlnaBahu District Karnal 3 RajinderKumar So Sh Dhani Ram HNo 171A Gali
Vikash ColonyMeerut RoadKarnal 4 SubhashChand No28
So Sh PyareLal Vill Barani PO Samaria
Bah District Karnal HaryanaPF 193 5 Pala Ram So Sh Mam Raj VPO SamariaBahu
District Karnal 1laryana6 PardeepKumar So Sh Sardari Lal VPO Samana Bahu
Karral 7 Tehal SinghSo ShSurjitSinghVPO SamariaBahu District
So District Karnal8 HarjinderSingh
Sh Havela SinghVPO DistrictKarnal 9 Baiwan So Sh Karta Ram VPO
SamanaBahu District Karnal Haryana10 Jaswant SinghSo ShVir Singh VPOSamanaBahu
District Karnal ll Roshan Lal So Shri Shankar Lal Vill Jhirbari PO Palwal District Kurukshetra
l2eeta Ram So Shri Khura Ram Viilage Jhirbari PO Palwal Tehsil Thanesar
Kurukshetra Haryana13 Dhararn Pal District
Thanlisar District So Shri Bir Singh Village Jhirbari PO Palwal Tehsil
Kurukshetra 14 Dharam Pal So Sh Shankar Village Jhirbari PO Palwal
ML Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra 15 Isham SinghSo Sh Babu Ram ViIlageJhirbari
g Palwal Tehsil Thanesar District PO
Kurukshetra 16 Isham SinghSo Shri Shan1ltnr Lal Village
Jhirbari early short Birdie PO Palwal Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra 17 Karam SinghS
o Sh33ir
Singh Vill Jhirbari PO Palwal Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra 18 JaganNath
So Sh
Rajtiht Kishan Chand VP 0 Samana Bahu District Karnal l9 Rajo Devi wife ofShri Saudagar
Mohalla Near Post Oice Pipli Distt Kurukshetra 20 Devi Ram son ofShn Bhul Ram
House No 3945 Sham Colony JhansaRoad Disu Kurukshetra 21 Aman Kumar So Sh Nar
SinghVPO Amin Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra Haryana 22 Arun Jha So Sh
Mahender Jha VPO Kariyan District SamastipurBihar 23 Sulekh Chand SoSh Pala Ram
V POSamana Bahu District Karnal 24 Pawan Kumar So Sh Hans Raj Ward No 7 StationArea
Nilokheri District Karnal 25TariokSinghSo Sh Hari SinghIiNo 30 Prem Colony Nilokheri
DistiEict
Kama 26 Surinder Pal So ShMulak Raj VPO Samana Bahu District
Bala
Saroj Wo Late Sh Dharam Karnal 27
PalVPO SamanaBahu District Karnal 28BaJwant SinghS
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
10
2f
o ShPritarn SinghVillage HaibatPur PO Nadana Teh Nilokheri
29Ajit SinghSoSl1lIajara Singh Village Shadi District Karnal Haryana
Kurukhshetra Haryana30Hari Pur Ladwa PO Umri Teh ampDjsrricr
Narain So Sh Ram Dev Village Samani PO Palwal Teh
District Kurirkhshetra 31 Ganga Ram So Sh BhuptiRamVillage Samani amp
District Kurukhshetra Haryana32 Jai Ram So PO Palwal T511amp
Teh amp Sh MangluRam Vi1lage Sarriani PO Palwal
District Kurukhshetra Harvana 33 Leela Ram S0 Sh Bishan Ram VPO
District Karnal 34Mani Ram So Sh Bal Bahadur SariianaBahu
35 HNo2040 Sector 3 District Kurukhshetra
IshamSinghSo ShMansa Ram Ward No 5 Ror Mohalla Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri
Karnal 36Arnarjit SinghSo ShSiria RamVillageDheru Majra PO District
Kurukhshetra Haryana 37Ranbl1ik Umri Teh ampDistrict
SinghSo Sh Marisa Ram VPOAmin Teh ampDistrict
Kurukhslierra 38 Inthjar Khan So ShJaan Mohammad VPO Bairsal TehIndri District
39GuljarSinghSo ShJaan Moharrirnad VPO BaKi Karnal
Pur TehsilNilokheri District Karnal 40
Mein Singh So Sh Mann SinghVPO BibiPur Jattan District Karnal 41
ShGandilu Ram Village kalal Dharam Pal So
MajraUmri PO Palwal Teh ampDistrict KurukhshetraHaryana
42Taspal So Sh HansrajVPO SamariaBahu District Karnal Haryana 43
Sh Ram Charan HNo 45 RajivColony Kaithal Som Parkash S0
Road Karnal 44Jai Narain So Sh Rarndex
Village SainaniPO Palwal Teh ampDistrict Kurukhshetra Haryana 45 Hans RajSo Sh
Ram VPO SamariaBahu District Kama 46Hukam Bhulla
PO Chand So Sh Shiv Ram Vil1age Baki Pur
Bairsal Tehlndri District Karnal 47 Ajit SinghS0 ShRamji Lal VPO SamariaBahu
District Karnal 48Dharam Pal So Sh Bhartu Ram VillageAnjanth1iPO Seed Pur Tehiilokheri
District Karnal 49 Som Natli So S11 Lakhi Rarn VPO SamariaBahu District Karnal 50
Satish Kumar So ShDes RajVillageDyalpur POGuruKul Distiict Kurukshetra SlMam
Chand So Sh SohanLal Village Ram NagarPOKalal MajraTeh l1ianesarDistrict
52 Rudi Devi Wdo Sh Nanak Chand VPO JyotiSar District Kurukshetra 53 Ravinder S
o
Sh BadcluRam VillageFefra Po Malda Distt GaziPur UP 54 Mulla Ram So Sh Rula Ram
VPO SamariaBahu District Karnal 55 ShyamLal S0 Sh Inder SinghVillage Barana
Arjheri DistrictKarnal 56Guru PO
Devi Wdo Sh Naresh Kumar Plot No2 1lospitalArea
Niloldieri District Karnal 57Sulari Singh So Sh Kehar SirighVillageRay Pur PO AJjbIi Distt
Karnal 58 Ram singh So Sh Mam Chand Vi11age Unis Pur POV Bairsal TehIndri District
Karnal 59Reshma Devi Wdo ShPala Ram Village Takhana PO Taraori Tehsi1 Nilokheri
District Karnal 60 Mahabir So Shjhandu Ram Village Takhana PO Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri
District Karnal 6lKrishan Lal So ShBa1Kishan Village Takharra PO Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri
District Karnal 62 Sanjay Kumar Sharma So ShSadhu Ram Ro Chaudhry Mohalla Taraori
Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal 63Sushil Kumar S0 Sh Puriishotam Dass VPO SamanaBahu
DisttKarnalHaryana64 Pawan Kumar So ShMam Chand ViIlageDyalpur POGuruKul
District Kurukshetra 65Rarn Dhari So ShKarta Ram HNo2078 Sector 3 District Kurukshetra
66RajivGuptaSo ShDes RajGupta HNo476 7 New Colony District Kurukshetra 67
Vinod Sharma So Sh Janardhan Dass Bhagwan Nagar Colony Pipli District Kurukshetra
68Shyuri Lal S0 Sh Bansi Lal HNo 35 HospitaiArea Nilokheri District Kainal 69 Mange
Ram So Sh Amar Singh College Colony KirmichRoad Thanesher DistiKurukshetra 70
Pawan Kumar So Sh Rajbir Sliarma VPO Garhi Jattan District Karnal 71 Kamlesh Devi Wd
0
Wd0Sh Rajpal HNo 84 BhagwanNagarColony Pipli District Kurukshetra 72 Tulsi
MahiPal Dhiman S0 Sh JugLal VPO SamariaBaliu District Karnal Haryana
V
SinghS0 ShArjanSingh HNo 1605Sector 3 District Kurukshetra 74 Amar o Sh
g
Bhagat RarnVillageJhirbari PO Palwal Teh ampDistrict Kurukhshetra Haryana7larieshwar
Parshad So Sh Chaman Lal Village Jhirbari PO Palwal Teh amp District Kurukhshetlha g
76RaniChander So Late Sh Ram DiyaVillage Jhirbari PO Palwal Teh amp
Haryana District
77Brahina Singh S0 Late ShSarnvaru Rajbar VillageKaithi PO
DistrictBalia UP
79Mancj 78Mahender Pal So Sh Mulak Raj VPO Samaria Bahu
Kumar So Sh Balbir Singh VPO Amin Teh ampDistrict Kurukhshetra Haryana
Jagjeet Singh Laddi So ShNarain Singh VPO Sarnana Bahu District Karnal 81 Surinder
Singh So ShNarain Singh VPO SamariaBahu District Karnal 82 Shiv Kumar So S1i Tula
Ram Village Takhana PO Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal 83Mittho Devi Wgo Sh
Atma Ram HNo 124 RajputMohalla Pipli District Kurukhshetra S4 Jai Narain So Sh Ram
Saran HNo 4665l Ram ColonyChuna Bhatti District Kurukhshetra 85 Yogdhyan So Sh
Kulcki Ram VPO Sarnana Bahu District Karnal 86Dharam Pal So Sh Shyam Lal VPO
SainanaBahu District Karnal 87Rameshwar Dass So Sh Rattan Singh HNo 49625 Model
Town
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
Jhansa Road District Kurukhshetra 83 Krishan Lal So Sh JagatRamV PO Kirrnacli
TRUE SCANNEDTehThanser
COPY OF THE District Kurukhshetra Haryana
89 Pawan Kumar So ShVijaySingh IlNo 5 Cali
ORIGINAL
No5 Basant Vihar Karnal 90 Jagdish
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Chand So Shllukam Chand VPOMathana TeliThanser
District Kurukhshetra Haryana 91 Rajinder So Sh Ram Shah VPO Samaria Bahu District
nawzr amp amp amp
Dharam
Roshan
Parkash
101
Samana
Karnal
102Raj
Ram
West
iKurukhslietra
nderKumax Narata
Sharma
Chhotu
Sudersan
Betta
0Kurukhshetra
Karnal Yakub
Ram Ram
Kar11al Anju
lO4Joginder
District
Bahu Singh
Kurukshetra
New
Distt
Palwal
DisttBalia Haryana
Nagar
l06Satpa1
Champaran
District
Teh
LalSo
S0
BahuGupta
Sl1Manga1
Karnal
103Jai
S0
UPSh 92Bhagwan
District
District
Sh
93Wdo
So
KarnaL Haryana
Singh
S97Shaikh
Sh
Ram
Atma
Ha1BiIas
ShlOORam
Late
S0 ShNaresh
Rajbar
Village
Amar
Bihar
Ram Haryana
94
SHN0165
o
S0 Singh
98
ShVidhi KJhirbari
95Narinder
ShBachna
Pal
Sh
RamPal
VPO S0
So
S0
Ruda96
Sh
LalPaxkash
Sh
VPO
Sh Sharma
Shaikh
Ram
Kumar
Amin Kumar
Ram Bairsal
Vi1lageButar1aPONilokheri
Haryana
Daya V1llage
Birbal
S0 Village
PO Surjan
colonyNear
SoRajbar
GuptaHNo
Brahamket
Dilber
Nand
99Ashok
Teh
Sh So
So Sh
Palwal
Sh
Sh TehKurukhshetra
Singh
Jagan
District 855
Village
Surjan
TehNilolltheri
Kumar
Parwara
VPOUncha
Mahmed
VPOUchana
Munif Mohan
S0
Nath
illage Sector
Village
Singh
Niren
Ram
PO
Pur
Teh Samana
Shobh
Ghalora
District
Kaithi
UmriKalan
District
Agecy
TehsilNilokheri
Sh Gas
V Samana
VillageDistt
DisttKarnal
Baraui
PO TehShahbz1d
Urban
Karnal
Model5Estate
Kurukhshetra
Barani
POHNo Santana
Balm
Tovm
DisttKa1nal
lO50m205
DisttKurulltshetra
Raj
PlOTikri
7IlTqFTPOSl1ishvax
PO Gaghora
K79
l107
08
Karnal
101 PO
PO
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Case titledas PayrelLal and 107 others vs TRL Private Limited and
otherswas filed throughShri M L Chandna Union authorized representative
House No 38 Pritam Nagarinthe Court of Karnal MsNeenaChaudhary

District
and Sessions JudgeLabour Court Panipat
All the workers of union executed an agreementwith the managementon 22

the
082008 basiswhich settlement was done on 26082008 as per Section 12 3 of
the industrial The agreementwas signedby the representatives

of
our
Union which also has signature
of ShriLakhwinder SinghSo ShriHarbhajan
Singhresident villageSamanaBahu
We all workmen had filed writ petitionNo 15640 and 2009 in Highcourt
Honble
Punjaband Haryana Chandigarh
regardingnonpayment of our dues as per
HighCourt order dated 26022013 we

agreementVide were advised to file claim
before lower competentcourt
the Honorable HighCourt order dated 26022013 all the workers

in view
Keeping
and union have been authorized by Payre Lal MrLakhwinder Singh Rajinder
Kumar as per 01052013 O1052013n which they were authorized for
giveevidencewitness submit response on our behaftscopy has been filed with
the current case in the court record
As it will take lot of time

a
to givewitness individuallyby 108 workers and all
workers are quitepoor and will need a lot of money in different types of
making
witness There are many widows whose husbands who were a Litigantin the case
have died in case MrPayreLal So ShriSurta Ram is litigant

thepresent No 1 but
he had a heart surgery recentlyand his health is not well

generally Because of
which he is unable to givewitness on behalf of all the workers
all these facts in mindwe allthe workers havedecidedthat on

Keeping our behalf
Anil Kumar Pandey

our
2017.09.05 13:57
colleagueMrLakhwinder Singh son of ShriHarbhajan
Singh resident of
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
103
villagewill givethe can giveoath on our behalf Whereverthere be a
and givingwitness he
need for signing can act on the basis that it is done by us
and it will be acceptable

to us In the presentcase the claim amount
which has
been claimed byall the workers is on similar patternand it is like Annexure 2 of
Lakhwinder SinghClaimstatement demand letter of all workmen is annexed
from1 to 108 At the time when these annexures were made by Sunil alias
Manmohan son son of Sudama Singhhe helpedus on humanitarian and
did not take any money from us The Annexure 1108 and thecalculation sheet
aresignedby us At that time deponentPyare Lal so Shrisurta Ram Rahinder
Kumaretc were present Theyhave full knowledge

of our case details of amount
and theyhave full information

on the matter He has goodknowledge
about the
full details
of our All ofthese authorized representatives
case
andlthe
amount are
familiar with the injusticedone by the managementto the workers and fraud
done by themin the claim amount

and they can representthe situation
circumstancesof all our workers fairlywell in the court
Therefore this power of attorneyas written in order

especially to remainin the
Charter and be used in time
of attorney
Power
Place
Dated
PayreLal So ShriSurta Ram
Witness
No 1JoginderBhartiSoShriTilakRajBharti
AanandhviharNear GhogripurPhatak
RoGali No4 Karnal
Witness No 2 Randhir Singh

So ShriRati Ram
Ro VillageBhudanpurDistrict Karnal
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
SinghS0 Sh Harbajan
Singh 3 Rajinder
Kumar
So Sh Dhani Ram
4 amuse W4 UIVTTTTP
Subhash Chand S0 Sh Pyare Lal 5 Pala Ram So
Sh Mam
Raj
dCl l
6
j29
Pardeep Kumar S0 Sh Sardari Lal 7 Tehal SinghS0
L
ShSLujitSingh
0 or 314
Havela Singh9 Balwan So Sh Karta
ma
jam
10 Jaswant Singh JM
ShVir So Singh
xx
11 Roshan Lal So Shri
Shankai Lal
fl 927
f 1 i
l2Jeeta Ram So Shri Khura Ram 13 Dharam Pal So Shri Bir

Singh fr
Cc1Q 3l131
14 Dharam Pal So Sh Shankar 15 Isham SinghSo Sh Babu
Ram
L7l4lf 1 L 1
I6
u4 9
Isham SinghSo Shri Shankar Lal 17 Kara l1S0 Sh
Bir Singh E
l
18 lJ
245
JaganNath So Sh Kishan Chand l9 RajoDevi Wife ofshri
1
al
Saudagar
peV 9 V
20 Devi Ram son of Shri Bhul Ram 21 Aman Kumar So Sh

Nar Singh
eexJw
22 Ma lt 1 e as us
Arm The S0T1
Sh Mahender Jha 23 Sule Chand SoSh Pala
Ram
l J
w7ZI7Z 23zkj K 5
24 Pawan Kumar So Sh Hans Raj 2STarlollt SinghSo Sh
Hari Singh
ai
26 Surinder Pal So ShMulak lgaj27 SarojBala Wo Late Sh
Dharam Pal
cs
28Balwant Singh So 5 C1
Q4
ShPritam Singh 29Ajit Singh So
Sl1Hajare Singh
301Iari Narain So Sh Ram Dev 31 GangaRam So Sh Bhupti

Ram
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
I777577
32 Jai Rani
fe 37
So Sh MangluRam33 Leela Ram So Sh Bishan
Ram
we 37
geiv5272
34Maiii Ram S0 Sh Bal Bahaclur 35 Isham SinghSo SliMansa
Ram
K4kxl5
Le IS we7
Awmwfgmgu
36AmarjitSinghS0 ShSiria Ram 37 Raiibhik SinghS0 Sh
Marisa Ram
larill
2ll 38 IiithjarKhan S0 ShJaan
ShJaah Mohammad 39GuljarSingh S o
JCl Mohammad
40 Mem Singh So Sh Mann Singh 41 Dharam Pal Sso

ShGandilu Ram
i 1 1
i4Jcks
So A51 l7
Sh 2l
Hansraj So Sh ll Narain
S0 Sh Ramdev
43So 54
ShRam Cliaran Z
45
l0rV154
Hans S0Raj Sh Bhulla Ram 46Hukam Chand Slo Sh
Shiv Ram 4
3917
47 Ajit Singh So Sl1RamjiLal Hz

Pal
Ram So Sh Bhartu
9
49 Q4
3W
Som Nath So Sh Lakhi Ram 50 Satish KumarS xlLz ShDes
Raj Tr
P70y 7avar VZear4

4
SlMam Chand S0 Sh Sohan Lal 52 Rudi Devi
Chand I
EM
flAF
53 Ravirider S0 Sh BadduRam 54 Mulla Sh Rula Ram
M
zwz
315 5
55 ShyamLal S0 Sh Inder Singh56 Guru Devi Wdfo Sh
Naresh Kumar
Singh
5ZSultaii So Sh Kehar Singh58 Ram Singh So Sh
Ch MC
59Resi1ma
Devi Wd0 SliPala Ram 50
1
Mahabifo ShTliandu
Ram
Kw
amp0Vn
61Krishari Lal S ShBal Kishan 62 SanjayKumar So
ShSadhu Ram
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
27
M9QQ94 W L 10e
63Sushil Kumar S0 Sh Purushotam Dass 64 S10
PawanKL1mai
ShMam Chand
m4
65Ram Dhari So ShKarta Ram
Q
66RajivGupta S0 ShDes Raj
Gupta 9I
67
inod gkw
Sharma So Sh Janardhan Dass lt1 Lal
68Shyam ail
S0 If
Sh
Bansi Lal
69 A5x eml
MarigeRam
So Sh Amar
WkT4CJ35
Singh 70 Pawan Kumar So Sh
Rajbir Sharma
A
SOSl1Aijan 7
7
BhagatRah
Singh 74 AmarSiamS0
V
Sh
L 1
do jTltJ 92
75Jaricsliwar Parshad S0 Sh Chairian Lal 76RamChander So
Late Sh Ram Diya
937 was Singh So Late

Ta
q7 gb1 77Brahma
So Sh Mulak Raj
ShSamvaru
lt V 6
Rajbar78Mahender Pal
2
n7
So Sh Balbir Singh80Jagjeet
Singh Laddi
S0 S1iNaraiii Singh
3amp2 J
81 Surinder Singh So ShNarain Singh32 Shiv Kumar so Sh

5aL31zjLlff Tula Ram
re i
7 biNil Q2357
83Mitl o Devi W0 Sh Atma Ram 84 Jai Narain So Sh
Saran
SnoSh Kukki Ram

85 Jogdhyan 86Dharam Pal S0 Sh Sb 1
Lal
pV2Tlt47
87Rameshwai ass S0 Sh Rattan Singh 88 Krishan Lal So
Sh JagatRam
ltvZgl3
RLM 89 Pawan Kumar So Shijay Singh 90 JagdishChand So
SliHukam Chand
g
22w lr xi
j
92 Sudersan Rajbar So Sh
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
aw Jlafl
93 Har
Singh
came
ilas So Sh Ruda Ram 94 RamPal So Sh Surjan
577ael
95Naiindei Kumar S0 Sh SurjanSingh 96 Birbal So Sh
J agan Nath
Z1lt51Z4
l
T7 v ah
5
97Shailltli Yakub S0 Sh Shaikh Muriif 98 Ram Parkash S0 Sh
Parwara Ram v
azz WW4
99Ashok Kumar So Sh Shobh Raj 100 Ram Pal So Sh
BraliainJeet
101 aw u
RajinderKumar So Sh Atma Ram 102 f
Anju Gu a d0
I L
LateShNaresh Kumar Gupta V
l
l03Tai BhagwanS0 ShBachria Ram 104loginderSharma Sfo
ShVidhi Lal Sharma
3My 77 l 53 L
m o
Sh
1050 P ar kasilS Sh ShM aiiga IS ingh 106 atpa ing o
Sh Amar Singh
sW 5lL
gcwf
lt4
2 177 J5
l07Roshan M
Lal S0 Sh Narata Ram W7
Sh Chhotu Ram 108 Dharam SirighSo
C0 Sh MLCharidiia
Nagar Labour Laws Advisor 38A
Kamal
414
i
314lt 7l7
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
I09
P8
Ag1We
Cel l
Court Ms Nina ChaoudharyDistrict and Sessions Judge Executive Officer
industrial and Labour

Court Panipat
PayreLal Other 107
Vs
Ms TRL Riceland Private Limited Others
Statement witness
E
I SinghSo ShriHarbhajan
Singh52 Years old Ro Villagepost office
SamanaBahudo herebyaffirm and declare as under
1 That the facts givenin myvitnessstatementare read in the abovecase as
of
testimony me and other 107 litigants workersas authorized to me by
all the workers throughthe power of attorneyand proposaldated 0105
2013
2 That the date and designation

appointment of Deponent workmen
Litigantshave been in Annexure should be

1 to 108 who
considered of the witnessThe defendant organization
aslpart resorted to
illegalVRS and terminated the services of all the Litigants workers
Whereasas per Para no 12 of page no 21 the clause of Standing

Orders
the definition of
of Company is given
3 the Labour union representativeand

That
therepresentativefrom
Shri DhirajPatel General Managerand
Management
consent of Mr R S Seshadri agreed

on the base of letter dated 10th July
2008 and concluded agreementdated 22082008which was finalized on
the date 26082008 under section 12 3 of the Industrial DisputesAct
1947 throughmediation of Labour cum Conciliation Officer

Karnal Under
thisagreementcontinuously
deteriorating the management
was discussedwith reference to General Demand Letter dated 04102017

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE filed by the union of workers and throughthis all matters including
Memo
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
ID
no 3207 dated 22102007 were settled Asperthe terms ofthe settlement
in Annexure 1 and the consent letter dated 22082008 on which our
Deponent Groupof of the union MrMahipa

representatives
SinghandlMrM PSharma have I their signature
mentioned in point A I recognize signatureof

the
DhirajPatel General Managersignedon behalf of ManagementAs per
agreementall legaldues payable

workmen are as below
Payment Leave encashmentPF and compensation

as per
Industrial Dispute
Act BonusMedical LTC 15 increment arrear and
notice the Act minimum

Industrial amount of Rs
75000 and of Rs 200000 with base calculation as
Rs 14000 per year All legaldues were based on CTC which has been
clearlydefined in the terms sno 1 to 10of settlement under section

123
of Industrial DisputesAct 1947n the Annexure attached with the
settlement dated 26082008 it has been clearlystated that Gratuitywill
be paid in accordance withthe GratuityAct wherein house rent
ConveyanceLTA Medical etc has been included

as all emoluments in
Basic Salariesas per Section2 rr Industrial Dispute

Act 1947
That the managementurgedthe workers to get letters from themin

after signingthe agreementand VRS Scheme and asked workmen to give
the letter of VRS acceptanceimmediately

so that the workers do not get to
know full details As per thercalculationby the managementthe full and
final dueof workers in which

was to theEmployees theworkers
could
not get the timeopportunity
to calculate their legaldues givento
them
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
110
5 to the agreement increase of 15
That according in Basic Salarywas not
considered basis Salaryof 20062007 Instead of the Old Basic pay

was
shown since 2008 whereas as per increment Basic Encreasementof
plaintiffs workers April 2008 Medical LTA basis which
last drawn salaryshould be considered for calculation of Gratuity

as shown
in demand letter claim statement by the complainants

Demand
6 That when workers knew that theywere cheated in of their legal
dues which has not beenas per settlement and Paymentand Gratuitythen
on the advice of all workers HarpalSinghSirohi Advocate HighCourt
Punjaband Haryana Chandigarh

on
07072009 sent LegalNotice to
ManagerDirectorHeadMs Tilda Riceland Pvt Ltd Samna Bahu Karnal
and Ms Tilda Riceland Private Limited 42nd KM Mile Stone NH8 Delhi
JaipurHighway Labour department and CBI New Delhi

Officials
etc which was replied on 16072009 by Sh Arun Kumar Mishra
authorised of Tilda Riceland Private Limited But
did not heed Aggrieved

Management workmen demonstrated which was
publishedin Punjab on 11082009 When workmen got no relief

filed a petition number 15640 of 2009 before Punjaband
they writ
HaryanaHigh Court and also filed a

letterdated 04092008 and
09112008 to DC SP CBI Delhi On the filed writ Punjaband Haryana
HighCourt ordered on 26022013 in which we were advised to file Legal
Claim before lower court and authorities Filingthe present case or other
case was also condoned for any delaybyHonble HighCourt
7 That it is clear from the fact that fraud was committed with
plagiarism
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
the worker employeein their legal dues given in writing on the
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Dy
companysletter head in the of Full and Final
toemployeesby
name
dues LIZ
That in the Full
the managementof the defendantorganization Final
dues of the Labour EmployeeKuldeepSinghSo ShriAvtar the
shown on SI No1 is Rs 10107 whereas Singhstotal

Kuldeep wage
is Rs as shown in the letter of the on 15

13919
022008 It is
fromthe fact that the salaryshown by the
managementie Rs 13919 will be the basis of agreementdated 2208
2008 and 26082008 para number 5 clauseB should bethe basis of
calculation of Gratuityand other legaldues But the managementhas not
done accordingly
howeverpara No6 of all claims show the exact Gratuity
calculation
thepaymentof has not been done by managementof
respondentorganisationin accordance with Last Basic Salaryincluding
legal dues such as increment Conveyance LTA etc Due to
absence of these components deponentshas been given less Gratuity
whereas all the allowances are to be included in the last pay as per
definition of wages defined in Section2 S
That Companywith all its workers organizedthe Gaurav

employees
Utsav 2004 at the premisesof the company during

the periodfrom 23 to
28 February2004 and all the workers were given Gaurav

employees
Utsav 2004 letter But when the General demand letter was givenon 04
102007 bythe General Secretary

and Advisor of the Labour Employee
to
the organization company about the problem of the workers
since then
employees with revenge in mind many unfair activities were
adoptedbytheorganization company managementAnd it was said that
their company is goingto close because theyare sufferingfinancial losses
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57 Misleading like this the service of the workers employees
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
10
11
12
13 That
108
And
him
Rahinder
whereas
which
Basis
That in
wereterminated
andwhen
all
aswhich
claim
all
I the
calculated
documents
detailslof
That
22082008
Controlling
approval
itis the
clear
from
helpthese
the
demands
signedmoney
basis
all
on from
present
only
Singh
by in
Industrial
the
the
and
which
from
claim
oath
of
and
calculated
the
humanitariandocuments
that
the
pretence
presented
Basic
they
paidbearer
have
present
Disputes
b
Gratuity
ydeponent
wtime itdeponent
calculation
and
letter
lessthan
settlement
full
which
all
made
thereafter
orkmen
ground information
claim
workmen
Theyclaim
that
Whereas
the
should
the
that
have
presented
by Shri
P
litigant
photois
basis
all
be
full
be
yareis
Sunil
shown
the
Union
as26082008
only
bon and
the
done
the
this
Lal
copies
legally
y calculations
in
settlement
management
alias
workers
legal
knowledgeworkdManmohan
ShriSurta
ues
the
the
CTCbe
legally he
closed
Last
have 25
mentioned
CTC
be
done
has
due
dated
been
And
Ramthe
basisbe
by
are
wages
sackedO of
Kumar
any are
amount
of deponent
on were
etcus
annexures
were
the
At
office us
wagas
government were
statement
of VRS
of
A theon
Act
ct was
Plaintiff
annexures
to ofus
to
statement
For done
Wofon
are
was
as
onon
Basic
orker was
to
per
matter
so of was
wages were
Section
to
of from
bour
valid Drawn
case
eforeto
1108not
done to
1
1152
after
so N
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 claim statement of claim letter no
fromdemand number
1 to 4 are as per
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
113
law valid and in accordanceto annexure 1 to annexure 108 All legal
may pleasebe arranged

clues to be paidand all demands be decidedas per
law
Deponent
Verified at on that the above contents of this affidavit are true and correct
to the best of my and belief

knowledge
Deponent
Dated
Place
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
114
y
BEFORE THE HONBLE DISTRICT JUDGECUMPRESIDING OFFICER

a A
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUMLABOUR COURT 2 moon

MINI SECRETARIAT GT ROAD PANIPAT IIARYANA
In the matter of an industrialdispute

alleged ReferenceNo PR614
bearing
BETWEEN
The Claimants
PyareLal amp
107Others
Through
ML Chandna
SeniorLabourLaws Advisor
38A PritamNagar
Karnal
Haryana
AND
TheManagement of
Ms TRL Riceland PVT Ltd
Formerly
known
as
Tilda RicelandPVT
Ltd
42 KM StoneNH8
Gurgaon 1
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT

OBJECTING TO THE AFFIDAVIT STATEMENT
EVIDENCE IN CHIEF OF MR LAKHVINDER SINGH WW
2
WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS FILING A
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AS EXHIBIT WW 2B
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETII
1 Thatthewell settledlaw of evidence is thata Power of Attorney

holder does not
have the rightto appear in the Witness Box on behalf of the of the
Executors
Power of Attorney In the presentfacts of the case Lakhvinder Singh
WW to be
2 is holdinga Power of Attorneyin favour of 107
WorkmenClaimantsand is thereforeseeking
to depose beforethis
accordingly
Honble Court on behalf of all 107WorkmenClaimaiits
2 That the Honble Court of India in

Supreme the case of Janki Vashdeo
BhojwaniSr Another Vs IndusInd Bank Ltd Others held on
December6 2004 It may be noted that the were shying

Appellants
Bank vehemently
awayfromgracingthe box The Respondent objected
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
S
3145
to the holder of Power of Attorney

allowing of the Appellants
to appear
in the witness box on behalfof the AppellantsThis Courtclarifiesthat
the burdenof proofthat the Appellants

have a in the property
will
be on and it
the Appellants was incumbenton the to have
thebox and discharged

graced the burdenthat theyhave a share in the
propertythe extent of share the independent of incomefrom
which theyhave towards the purchase

of the property
Further the Court in the aforesaidJudgment

has also held that The
Powerof Attorney does not have the personalknowledge

of the
matter of the Appellantsand therefore

he be crossexaminedon those
facts are to the of the PrincipalOrder III

personalknowledge
Rules 1 and
2 CPC empowers the holderof Power of Attorneyto act
on behalf of In our view the word actsimplemented

in
Order 111Rules 1 and

2 CPC confines onlyin respectof acts done by
the Power of Attorney

holder in exercise of power grantedby the
instrument The term acts would not include deposingin place
of the Principal In other words if the Power of Attorney

instead holder
has rendered some acts in pursuance to Power of he may
deposeforythePrincipalin respectof such acts but he cannot depose
for the Principalfor the acts done by the Principal

and not by him
he
Similarly cannot in respectof the matter
deposefor the Principal
which only the Principalcan have a personalknowledgeand

in respect
of is entitledto be crossexamined
which the Principal
Further that the Honble Court of India in yet anothercase

Supreme Man
Kaur Dead by LRS Vs Harlar SinghSanghadecided

on October
5
2010hasreiteratedthe aforesaidobservations to the competence

with regard of
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
116
Power of to adduce evidence on behalf of the

Attorney holder
ClaimantsWorkmen
more so in the facts zuid circumstancesof this case Mr
Lakhvinder Singh in his has statedthat he is providing
documentsmarkedas Exhibits W 22 to W 2108 thathave admittedly

not
been executed bythe said Mr LakhvinderSingh

but are documentsin respectof
107other who are a partyto the alleged

industrialdispute
r
pending
adjudication
proceedingsbeforethis Honble Tribunal Hence it is
in law for Mr LakhvinderSinghto stand and state on oath
onbehalf of 107 WorkmenClaimantsin respectof moniesreceived

by them
RetirementScheme datedAugust
undertheVoluntary 26 2008
PRAYER
It is thereforemost respectfully that keeping

prayed in view the decisions of the
Honble Court of India with regard

Surpenie to the of Power of Attorney
competence
holder to adduce behalf of the the Special

ClaiainntsWorkmen Power of
led
Attorney on the recordas Exhibit WW 2B be expunged
and beremovedfrom the
this Honble Tribunal the is illegal misconceivedand

patently
record
of as same
untenablein law in the facts and circumstancesnarrated hereinabove Furthermore
Mr LakhvinderSinghWW 2 cannot and authenticate Exhibits 2 to

depose WW
W 2108 that are individual claims of the WorkmenClaimants who
have raised the present

industrial dispute
k
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT OF

MS TRL RICELAND PVT LTD
RAHU L VAISH
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Place Panipat
Haryana
26 2016
DatedAugust w
V V y
UEr
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Ian Presiding
In the Court Neena Chaudhary
of Ms Industrial Tribunal Cum 85Session Panipat
Annexure P10
LD
Officer DisttLabour CourtJudge H7
Group of Workmen namely 2
PyareLal S o Sh Surat Ram amp

107 OthersApplicantsWorkmen
Versus
M TRL Riceland Pvt Ltd FormerlyKnown as

s s Tilda Rice
Land Ltd Samana Bahu Distt KNL M s Tilda Rice Mill Land Ltd
42 KM Stone NH8 Delhi Jaipur Road Gurgwon 122001
throughits President 81Directors 85Others
Respondent Management
In Re General Demand notice by the aforesaid Group of Workmen
U S 2 K of Industrial DisputeAct 1947 in view of order dated
26022013 passedby HonbleHigh Court of Punjab85Haryana
Chandigarh
Sub Replyto the applicationon behalfpf the management
objectingto the afdavit statement EVIDENCEINCHIEF of Mr
Lakhwinder SinghWW2 wherein he has stated that he is ling a
specialpower of attorney as Ex WW2 B

RespectedMadam
It is submitted as under
Pre LegalObjections
1 That the application under reply led by the applicant
Managementrespondentis not at all maintainable in its present
form and is abuse of processof law as the same was not objected
at the time of tendering the sme before this Honble Court
Respondent is filling the present
applicationwithout any grount just tQll1lCl6I
on the matter on one
pretext or the other It is

SL1blI11ttd hat it s the
who are delaying the
proceedingsby ling frivolous application the respondentswith an
obliquemotive to harass and delay the genuine claim of the
applicants workmen and has led numerous frivolous application
The delay tactics clearly reects from the condict of the
respondentemployers management therebyabusingthe process
of law
2 That the present applicationis not maintainable and is liable

to be dismissed as the applicant has not come to this Honble
Court with clean hands and has intentionally suppressedthe
material facts from the knowledgeof this Honble Court
3 That the applicant locus has no

standi to file and maintain the 7presentapplication
the as
applicants workmen had filed the for summoningthe

witness from Ld Controllingauthorityunderpayment of Grauity
Act 1972 Karnal and Sh Parmod Yadav Clerk concern has bene
examined as WW1 before this Honble Court
It is submitted that Sh Parmod yadavhas appearedas W

1 and placed on
record the summoned record but Ld AR for the
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 respondent has not cross examined this witness knowinglyand
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH intentionallyand deferred WW1 85 2 On the next date of hearing
l Mi
117 A
here Ld AR for the respondenthas crossexamined WW1 and

then moved the present application cross examination of
without
WW2 which shows the conduct of the respondentmanagement
The present applicationis nothingbutis the wrong interference of
the respondent management in the set procedureof law under
Labour legislationwherein it is providedthat one Workman can
even led the claim on behalf of other workmen
Even otherwise it
is providedunder Order 3 Rule 4 for adoptthe procedureof CP as
prescribedunder sub section 3 of Section 11 of the Industrial
DisputeAct 1947 wherein clause d is very much clear
4 That the Management ispondent is estopped to le and
maintain the presenl applicationfrom this own act and conduct as
the group of workmen had led a CWPNo 15640 of 2009 against
the respondentmanagement whereintheyhad directlychallenged
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme before Honble High Court of
Punjab amp Haryana Chandigarh The IIgnbleHigh Court of Punjab
85 Haryana Chandigarh has disposed of the matter with the
observation that remedyprovidedunder the Industrial Law 85 Civil
Law It is ordered by the Honble judge that the period from
25082009 till the date of receipt of this order and 90 days
thereafter time of 90 das remained excluded from the period of
limitation Not only this the Honble High Court of Punjab 85
HaryanaChandigarhhas clearly directed that the dispute matter
of difference of claim should be decided on merit The relevant lines
of judgmentof Honble Justice Mr Rajiv Narain Raina passed on
26022013 in CWP No 15640 of 2009 last para at pageNo 13 is
as
under 1 5
l l
In is had to under law the industrial
case resort remedy
which prescribed no limitations for reference of disputeseven so
this periodwould also not stand in of the petitionersof a
defence plea of delay and laches may be deiced on
merits top end the simerringdiscontent Therefore in the light of
the above observation of Honble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana Chandigarh the presen application deserves to be
dismissal and be dismissed
5 That from bare readingof the present applicationno case

a
is made out for allowing the present application the
respondentmanagementhad filed the reply before the Honble
High Court of Punjab Chandigarh wherein they
averred that in case there a dispute regardingthe bona de
nature be
of settlement that would yetanotherIndustrial dispute
which the Govt may refer to for adjudicationIn this regard the
respondent management had National EngineeringLtd
VS State of Raj 2000 SCC 371 and same is discussed by Honble
Justice Mrs Rajiv Narain Raina in hisijudgment dated 26022013
in CWP No 15640 of 2009 at page No 8 Now at this stage the
respondentmanagementis lling the present application on the
baseless ground
6 That the applicationunder reply is hopelesslytime barred

whichhas been led at a very belated stage So the applicant
management respondentis not entitled for nay relief
7 That the respondenthasnot come to the court withclean
hands concealed the true facts from this Honble
Court 1 I
1
Anil Kumar Pandey 8 Thatthe has led the present
2017.09.05 13:57
application with ulterior
ORIGINAL
motive of ingering on the matter as
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
l
it
H8
managementrespondentwants to harass and humiliate the poor
workmen and to prolongthe litigationin anyway or manner
9 That the present applicationis false frivolousand vexation

to the very much knowledge managementrespondent
10 That the respondent is taking
undue advantageof this Honble kCourt as the Honble Court is
meant for the beneciary of the workmen who are strugglingfor
right of difference of claim since longitime even faced with false
criminal case registeredby the 1mamagement respondent
11 That
the present application is of complex complicated
nature and is to be dismissed on this score alone and in case the
applicationis allowed there will be physical discomfort pain and
agony and hardness to the applicant workmen The applicant
Managementthis applicationwants to De novo trail of the case
which is againstthe principleof equityjustice and conscience
On Merits
1 That the contents of para no 1 of the applicationare wrong

incorrect and hence denied The made in these paras
are
absolutelyfalse frivolous baselessThe present
application is nothing but is the wrong interference of the
respndnet management in the set procedureof law as prescribed
under Order 3 Rule 4 which can be adoptedby this Honble
tribunal in View of clause d of subSection 3 of Section 11 of the
Industrial DisputeAct 1947
2 That the contents of para no 2 of the applicationare wrong

incorrect and hence denied The avernments made in these paras
are
absolutelyfalse frivolous vexationand baseless The case law
cited belongsto the property matter whereas the present matter in
the hand of this Honble Court is under social legislation The
object of the Industrial DisputeAct is to secure the rights of
weaker section of the society as observed by the Honble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in aicase Managementof HUDA
supra Similar view is also expressed by the Honble Supreme
Court of India Even otherwise the provisions of the industrial
Dispute Act 1947 is very much clear It is worth mentioninghere
that WW2 Lakhwinder Singh is the Coemplyee of the other 107
claimants Group of workmen and is well conversant with the facts
beingtheir coemployeeas well as the circumstances faced during
the employment of the respondent management and duly
authorized to adduced evidence Moreover all the workmen have
similar difference of claim under Annexure 1 to 108 The main
disputed question of the difference of claim is the same similar
nature
3 That thepara no 4 of applicationis wrong incorrect and

the
hence denied The avernmentsmade inuthispara are absolutely
false frivolous vexatious and baseless
4 That the contents of para no of the applicationare wrong
incorrect and hence denied The averments made in these paras
are
absolutelyfalse frivolous vexatiousand baseless The facts
contents submitted in para no 1 andl2 of above reply may kindly
be read as part 85parcelof replyof this para also
No afdavit
in support of the applicationis led by the respondent
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
management respondent The motive of the applicant
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
7 management
workman so asis toprolonging
deprivethem
thefrom fruitsharassing
theand of e legal
the poor
order W1
Prayerclause of the applicationis wrong and hence denied
Hence from any angel of the prayer of the present application
seen
as
preferredby the applicantmanagementis not to be considered
at all and thus the same deserves outright dismissal being an
abuse of the process of law and the same is just to linger on the
matter in order to deprivethe applicants workmen
In view of the above

submissions it is therefore prayedthat
the applicationpreferredby theapplicantmanagementmay kindly
be dismissed with exemplarycost given to each applicant in the
interest of poor workman
Impression of the
Group of
Group of Work Men
Of M s TRL Riceland Pvt Ltd FormerlyKnown as M s Tilda
Rice Land Ltd Samaria Bahu Distt Karnal M s TilaRice Land
Ltd Delhi Jaipur Road Gurgaon122001

42KM Stone NH8
PyareLal so Sh Surat Ram 85107 others

I
Verication
Veried thatthe contentsiof the abovereplyof the

application are true and correct accordingto our knowledgeand
belief
Veried at Karnal
On dated 7102016
Through Chandna labour Laws Advisor Dalip Kumar

ML
Chandna HB Authorized Representatives
MPA of Workman Office
38A Pritam Nagar Karnal
1u OPY
dvocate
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
20
4mz9vW P 1
BEFORE THE HONBLE DISTRICTJUDGECUMPRESlDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL

TRlBUNALCUMLABOUR COURT2 FLOOR
MINI SECRETARIATGT ROAD PANIPAT HARYANA
In the matter of an allegedindustrial disputebearing

Reference No PR614
BETWEEN
Claimants
PyareLal 107Others
Through
ML Chandna
Senior Labour Laws Advisor
38A Pritam Nagar
Karnal
Haryana
AE
Management
Ms TRL Riceland Pvt Ltd
known as
Formerly
TildaRicelandPvtLtd
42 KM Stone NH8
Gurgaon 4
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
MS TRL RICELAND PVT LTD HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS THE MANAGEMENT PRAYING THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL
TO DIRECT THE CLAIMANTSTO DEPOSIT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
v
RECEIVED BY THEM UNDER

THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME WITH
THE MANAGEMENT NiVEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1 That the Claimants had issued a Demand Notice under Section 2 k of
the Industrial Disputes

Act on October 4 2007 before Labour Cum
Conciliation Officer Iarnal On receiptof the said Demand Notice
Conciliation proceedingswere held whichfinallyculminatedintoa
was a
Voluntary Retirement Scheme which incorporatedinto
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
V
4 IL
TripartiteSettlement before Labour Cum Conciliation Officer on
August262008
2 That in response to the said Scheme introduced by the Company 203
employees
including
the Claimants exceptSukhdev SinghSO Arjan
Singh who
tothe
are a industrial dispute
appliedfor under the said Scheme and received all their dues irifull and
final settlement Thereafter the claimants have themselves filled their PF
and Pension form and withdrawn the amount of the same Further the
claimants also availedTaxbenefitson under

have thepayment
I
the said VRS
3 That the said 203 the

including 108 Claimants were paidtheir
amounts under
respective thesaid Scheme on various datesThe said
employees their respective

accepted paymentswhich were paidthrough
Chequesand encashedby them and thereafter
the said money in their respectivebank accounts

without any protest
lodgedby them It to note that the said these Claimants
have alsoiencashedthe Cheques

admittedly made in pursuance to the
said Scheme and the said amounts in their bank

respective I
accounts without any protest
4 now
That the said 108 Claimants have challengedin the present
the said Scheme and have contended before this Honble
Tribunal that not received the paymentsas per the

they alleged
Settlement Agreementdated
August 22 2008 In pursuance to their
claim VRS and paymentreceived bythem theyhave

bychallenging not
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
7
ci
the principal
deposited amount received bythem under
the Scheme with
the Managementas is mandated bythe Honble SupremeCourt of India
in the case titled llIan SinghVs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 8 Another
reportedas 2011 The Honble SupremeCourt in the said case
heldthat an industrial disputewherein a Retirement Scheme

Voluntary
has been challenged

after the Claimants
have acceptedthe benefits
under the said Schemeare requiredto depositthe principal

necessarily
amount by them
received under the Scheme with the Management
before the Honble Court can upon the

proceedto adjudicate
Order made by the appropriate the present

Government Consequently
industrial disputeinstituted bythe Claimants is not maintainable as while
they acceptedthe fullmonetarybenefits under the Voluntary
retirement withoutany protest and are enjoyinginterest
thereon but have failed to depositthe same with the Management
which is a legal requirementconsequentlyfurther adjudication
are untenable in law

proceedings
That the Honble Supreme Court of India in a recent decision
RaijibhaiBhilthabhaiParmar amp
Others Vs Reliance Industries Ltd
Formerlyknown as Petrochemicals CorporationLtd amp

Another
reportedas 2016 LLR Page 673 has held that After receivingVRS
if the workmen want

compensation to the
challenge same byraisingan
disputetheywill have to depositthe amount received towards
VRS Accordinglythe legal position is well settled that in case the
workmen desire to contestthe VoluntaryRetirement Scheme dated
August26 2008 they are requiredin the first instance to depositthe

Anil Kumar Pandey
I12
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
amount received at the time of cessation
bythem of with
employment
the Management
as a
for the Labour CourtIndustrial
Tribunal to enter adjudicationHence it is submitted that beforefurther
adjudication are held the Claimants be directed to
the Management Company the

immediatelydeposit with amount
received bythem under the aforesaid Scheme
That the facts and circumstances of the present industrial disputeare
similar to the judicialprecedent

mentioned above in
Furthermore view
of the fact that the said 108 Claimants have alreadyacceptedfull

i i
benefits under the VRS introduced by the Management
without any protest thus they are liable to either withdraw the said
industrial disputeor depositthe principalamount acceptedby them
under the VRS to the managementbefore this Honble Tribunal in order
to proceedwith the said industrial dispute
PRAYER
It is thereforemost prayedthat this Honble Tribunal be pleased
to direct the Claimants the principalamount received bythem under
the Retirement Scheme with the Management Company as a
condition to
precedentto beingallowed proceedwith the present industrial
disputePass any such further Order as the Honble Tribunal may deem fit
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT OF

PVT LTD
MS TRL RICELAND
I13
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
PlacePanipat Haryana
Dated August26 2016 AUTHORIZED

RAHULVAISH
SlGNATORY
itioltte
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
25
Annexure P 12
In The Court of Ms Neena ChaudharyDistt 85 Judge

Session LD
PresidingOfcer Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Panipat
Groupof Workmen namely
PyareLal S o Sh Surat Ram 81 107 Others ApplicantsWorkmen
Versus
M TRL Riceland Pvt Ltd FormerlyKnown as M s Tilda Rice

s
Land Ltd Samana Bahu Distt KNL M s Tilda Rice Mill LandLtd
42 KM Stone NH8 Delhi Jaipur Road Gurgwon 122001
throughits President 81Directors 85Others
Respondent Management
In Re General Demand notice by the aforesaid Group of Workmen
U S 2 K of Industrial DisputeAct 1947 in View of order dated
26022013 passedby Honble HighCourt of Punjab Haryana
Chandigarh
Sub Replyto the applicationon behalf of the management
objectingto the afdavit statement EVIDENCEINCHIEF of Mr
Lakhwinder SinghWW2 wherein he has stated that he is ling a
specialpower of attorney as Ex WW2 B

RespectedMadam
It is submitted as under
Pre LegalObjections
1 That the application under reply filed by the applicant
Managementrespondentis not at all maintainable in its present
form and is abuse of process of law as the same was not objected
at the time of tendering the sme before this Honble Court
Respondent employersmanagement is filling the present
applicationwithout any grount just to linder on the matter on one
pretext or the other It is submitted hat it s the
respondentemployeesmanagement who are r
proceedingsby ling friviolous application the respondents

delaying with
the
an
oblique motive to harass and delay the genuine claim of the
applicantsworkmen and has led nuemreous friviolous
application The delay tactics clearly reects from the condict of
the respondentemployers management thereby abusing the
process of law
2 That the present applicationis not maintainable and is liable

to be dismissed as the applicant has not come to this Honble
Court with clean hands and has intentionally suppressed the
material facts from the knowledgeof this Honble Court
3 That the applicant Management respondenthas no locus

standi to le and maintain the present application as the
applicants workmen for summoningthe
had led the application
witness from Ld Controllingauthority under payment of Grauity
Act 1972 Karnal and Sh Parmod Yadav Clerk concern has bene
examined as WW1 before this Honble Court
It is submitted that Sh Parmod yadavhas appearedas WW

land placed on record the summoned record but Ld AR for the
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 respondent has not examined this witness knowingly and
cross
ORIGINAL intentionally
andd eferred WW1 8 2 On the next date of hearing
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
iis A
here Ld AR for the respondenthas cross examined WW1 and
then moved the present applicationwithout cross examination of
WW2 which shows the conduct of the
The present applicationis nothing but is the wrong interference of
the respondent management in the set procedureof law under
Labour legislationwherein it is providedthat one workman can
even on
led
the claim behalf of other workmen Even otherwiseit
is under Order 3 Rule 4 for adoptthe procedure of CP as
provided
prescribed under sub section 3 of Section 11 of the Industrial
V
DisputeAct 1947 wherein clause d is very much clear

4 That the Mangementrespondent is estopped to file and
maintain the present applicationfrom this own act and conduct as
the group of workmen had led a CWP No 15640 of 2009 against
the respondentmanagement wherein they had directlychallenged
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme before Honble High Court of
Punjab 85HaryanaChandigarh The Honble High Court of Punjab
85 Haryana Chandigahrhas disposed of the matter with the
observation that remedyprovidedunder the Industril Law 85 Civil
Law It is ordered by the Honble judge that the period from
25082009 till the date of receipt of this order and 90 days
thereafter time of 90 das remained execluded from the period of
limitation Not only this the Honble High Court of Punjab 85
HaryanaChandigarh has clearly directed that the dispute matter
of difference of claim should be decided on merit The relevant lines
of judgmentof Honble Justice Mr Rajiv Narain Raina passed on
26022013 in CWP No 15640 of 2009 last para at page No 13 is
as
under
In case resort is had to remedyunder the industrial law
which prescribedno limitations for reference of disputes even so
this periodwould also not stand in the way of the petitionersof a
defence plea of delay and laches andidisputemay be deiced on
merits top end the simerringdiscontent Therefore in the light of
the above observation of Honble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana Chandigarh the presen application deserves to be
dismissel and be dismissed
5 That from bare readingof the present applicationno case

a
is made out for allowing the present application the
respondentmanagementhad led the reply before the Honble
High Court of Punjab andiHaryanaChandigarh wherein they
averred that in case there is a dispute regardingthe bona de
nature of settlement that would be yet another Industrialdispute
which the Govt may refer to for adjudication In this regard the
respondent management had referred National EngineeringLtd
VS State of Raj 2000 SCC 371 and same is discussed by Honble
JusticeMrs Rajiv Narain Raina in hisjudgment dated 26022013
in CWP No 15640 of 2009 at page No 8 Now at this stage the
respondentmanagementis lling the present application on the
baseless ground
6 That the application under reply time barred

is
which has been led at a very belated stage So the applicant
management respondentis not entitled for nay relief
7 That the respondent not come to the court with clean
has
hands concealed the true and material facts from this Honble
Court
Anil Kumar Pandey 8 That

the has led the rpesent
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
application with ulterior motive of lingering on the matteras
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
6
management wants to
harass and humiliate the poor
workmen and to prolongthe litigationin any way or manner
9 That the present is false frivolous and vexation

to the very much knowledgeof the managementrespondent
10 That the respondent is taking

undue advantageof this Honble kCourtas the Honble Court is
meant for the beneciary of the workmen who are strugglingfor
right of difference of claim since long time even faced with false
criminal case registeredby the 1mamagement respondent
11 That the present application is of complex complicated

nature and is to be dismissed on this score alone and in case the
applicationis allowed there will be physical discomfort pain and
agony application
and hardness to the applicant workmen The applicant
wants to De novotrail of the case
which is againstthe principleof equityjustice and conscience
On Merit
l
1 That the contents of para no 1 of the applicationis a matter
5 I
of record
2 That the contents

of para no 2 of the applicationare wrong
incorrect and hence denied The averments made in these paras
are
absolutely false frivolous vexations and baseless The
applicant have never applied the VRS Scheme whereas the same
was offered by the respondent management as the same is
admitted by the respondents management themselves in the
pleading
3 That the para no 4 of the applicationis wrong incorrect and
hence denied
4 855That the contents of paras no 4 85 5 of the applicationare

wrong incorrect and hence denied The averments made in those
paras are absolutelyfalse frivolousvexations and baseless It is
submitted that the respondentmanagement has taken number of
objection including the matter of returning the compensation
under VRS Scheme referring the judgment of Honble Supreme
court of India titled as Man Singh Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
page no of written statement led before Honble High Court of
Punjab 85 Haryana Chandigarh but the objectionwere rightly
rejectedby Honble Mr Justice Rajiv Narain Raina in his judgment
dated 26022013 in CWP No 15640 of 2009 Now at this stage
the respondentmanagementis lling the present application on
the baseless ground
6 That the contents of no 6 of the applicationare wrong

para
incorrect and hence deniedThe averments made in these paras
are
absolutelyfalse frivolous vexationsand baseless
The factscontents submitted in parano 1 85 2 of the above reply
may kindly be read as part 85parcelof reply of this para also
No afdavit in support of theapplication is led

by the
of the applicant
respondentThemotive
managementis prolonging the case and harassing the poor
workman so as to deprivethem from the fruits of the legalorder
Prayer
clause of the applicationis wrong and hence denied
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL Hence seen from any angelof the prayer of the present application
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
as
preferredby the applicantmanagementis not to be considered
I27
at all and thus the same deserves outright dismissal being an
abuse of the process of law and the same is just to linger on the
matter in order to deprivethe applicants workmen
In View of the above
submissions it is therefore prayedthat
the applicationpreferredby the applicantmanagement may kindly
be dismissed with exemplarycost given to each applicant in the
interest of poor workman
I
SignatureThumb Impression of the
Group of
Groupof Work Men
Of M s TRL Riceland Pvt Ltd FormerlyKnown as M s Tilda
Rice Ltd Bahu Distt Karnal Rice Land

Land Samana M
Ltd 42 KM Stone NH8 Delhi Jaipur Road Gurgaon122001

I
Pyare Lal so Sh Surat Ram 85 107 others

Verication
Veried
that the contents of the above replyof the
applicationare true and correct accordingto our knowledgeand
belief
Veried at Karnal
On dated 7102016
Through ML Chandna labour Laws Advisor Dalip Kumar

Chandna MPA HB Authorized Representatives
of Workman Ofce
38A Pritam Nagar Karnal
Advocate
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
9 I3
it
I
1 r Anwmupd
J7
rj1IPllo 757Ho Disposed
of
IN ms
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND AT CHANDIGARH
HARYANA
The
Stateof
DirectorCBI
DirectorGeneral
NewDelhi
Labour
Department of Labour
Block
ofatNo4
Commissioner
Haryana throughPolice
PHaryana
rincipalat Sector
6Haryana
Floor
Chandigarh at Panchkula
Secretary
CGO to
17Govt
Complex Lodi
Chandigarh
of Road
Haryana
The SSP Karnal
DirectorTilda RicelandPvt Ltd Samanabahu DistrictKarnal
The Shakli BhogFoods Ltd 24 SSI Industrial Area GT Karnal Road
Delhi 110033Indiathrough its Managing Director
Subject CWP 15640 of 2009
PyareLal and others
Versus I Petitioner
State of Haryana
and others
Sir 4I
Respondent
lam directed to forward

herewith a copy of order dated 2622013 passed
bythis Honble HighCourt in
the abovenotedCivil Writ strict compliance
Petitionforimmediate
Given undermy handand the seal ofthis Court on 21st day of March 2013
CHANDIGARH
BY ORDER OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
for
AssistantRegistrarWrits
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
17
x
J Jh11Depanme1
wha
cl Aumad 73iib67urvan
5i1
i gno 1 17 QxUL suLlLmiO
i lt7gt
F1 5
PUNJAB
doum FOR
HARYANA AT
OF
10
Ti
CiViL WRIT PETITION OF 2009
NOzC0
1 Pyare Lal son of ShriSUITERam Vill Barani PO
SmanBahuDistrictKarnalHaryana
PF
No 19
2 Jaspalson of Shri Hans Raj VPO Samana Bahu
KarnalHaryanaPF
District No 89
3 Lila Ramson of Shri Bishna Ram VPO SamanaBahu
DistrictKarnalHaryana
PF No 359
4 RajeshKumarson of Shri SantoshKumarVPO

Barsal
District HaryanaPF No 1735
T
5 Singhson of Shri Harbhajan

Lakhwinder SinghVPO
Samana Bahu DisirictKarnaiHaryana
PF 103
6 SatpaiSinghson of ShriAmar SinghVPO Barsal
HaryanaPFNcH14
DitricLKarnal
7 I
Sushi Kumarson of Shri ParshoiamDass VPO
Bahu DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF
Samana No 4496
8 NarinderKumarson of Shri SurjanSinghiilagg Barani
Khaisa PO Samana DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF

1313
9 Subhash Chand son of Shri Piare Lai VPO Barani
PO
SamanaBahuDistrictKarnalHaryanaPF N0 3930
10
V
Pala Ram son of Shri Mam Raj PO Samana Bahu
HaryanaPF 193
1i IshamSinghson of Shri ShankarDass Village
JharbariPO Paiwal Disirici LiUi5iiEifEl 3IExi5Ti3

PF
Anil Kumar Pandey No
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
I3 0
a
muss
ElaminerJudicial Department
12 of Shri H3
304 PardipKumarson hr5ril I
Bahu DistrictKarnalHaryana
PF 233
t
13 JaneshwarPrasad son of Shri Chamanlal Village
P0Palwa DistrictKurukshetra
Jharbari Haryana
PF
No
326
T
F
14 DharamSinghson of Shri ChhotuRam VPO

Amin
15 son of Bir SinghVillageJharbariPO
KaramSingh
PalwalDistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
PF No 66
16 MahabirSinghson of Shri BhanuRam Vill Tarwana
PO PhaganaTehsil Nilokheri
DistrictKarnal
Haryana
PF
No
39
17 Ram son of Shri Budh Ram Vill Tarwana

PO
PhaganaTehsil Nilokheri
DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF
No
178
18 Ram Singhson Mam ChandVillage

ofAShri Unis
Pur
PO BairsalDistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 2357
19 Tehal Singhson of Shri Surjit

SinghVPO Samana
Bahu DistrictKarnal HaryanaPF 317
20 Yogdanson of Shri Kuki RamVPO SamanaBahu
DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 239
21 Som Nathson of Shri Lakhi Ram VPO Samana Bahu
DistrictKainalHaryanaPF No 318
22 Hari Narainson of Shri Ram Dev VillageSamaniPO
Palwal DistrictKurukshetra
HaryanaPF 236
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
13
Lu
yun 1
12 gh1ea0
PalwalDistrictKurukshetra
HaryanaPF No 262
24 Dharampal
son of Shri GandholuRam VillageKalal
Majra PO PalwalDistrict HaryanaPF I 189

I
25 Jai Narainson of ShriRam DevVillagePandey

Pur
PO KanduiDistrictBaliaUP PF No
26 SarojBvalawife of Shri DharamSinghVPO Samana

Bahu Districtlarnal
HaryanaPF 3862
27 JaganNath son of Shri KishnaRam VPO Samana
BahuDistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 1372
28 Jai Ram son of Shri Bhagelu
RamVPO Samana
DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF 230
29 Ram Pal son of Shri Surjan

SinghVillageBaraniPD
Bahu DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF 2971
Samana
30 LakshmanPodalson of Shri BhojRaj IlNo 195A

Nagar
Bhagwan DistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
PF No 1368
31 Kedar Bahadur
son
ofshri DharamBahadurHNo
1185A Bhagwan
NagarColonyPipli
HaryanaPF N0
32 Bakhshish
Singhson of Shri JaspalSector 3 House
Board Colony DistrictKurukshetra
HaryanaPF 248
33 lllangeyRam son of Shri Amar SinghColege

Colony
KirmachRoad Kurukshetra
DistrictKurukshetra
HaryanaPF
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
No 88
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
l3L
rrDAILU
C3f iifttn
lEtultie mic
34 SurenderPal MP tltmrlul Ft am
son ShriMulakh
of RsmltlttPSamana
PF No
35 Singhson of Shri Havela SinghVPO
Samana Bahu DistrictKarnal HaryanaPF No 322
36 itlaniRam son of Shri Bal Bahaclur

HouseNo 2040
Board ColonySector
Housing District
3 Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra
Haryana
37 FlamPrasad son of ShriMohan Lal House No 2040
BoardColonySector 3 Kurukshetra
Housing District
Kurukshetra
HaryanaPF No
38 lntzarson of Shri Jan llohammad PO Bairsal

Village
DistrictKarnal
39 Krishan Kumar son of Shri Telu Ram VPO Samana
40 Balivanson of Shri Karta Ra VPO Bahu
41 ivlulaRam son of Rula Ram VPOSamana Bahu District
KarnalHaryana
42 RajeshKumarson of Shri Subhash Chand Village
ltansu DistrictKarnalHaryana
Majra PO Bhaugana
43 ShyamLat son of Shri lricler SinghVillageBarana
Khalsa DistrictKarnal Haryana
44 Pal
itlahendra son of Shrillulakh RajVPO Samana
1
RajiinderShah son of Shri Ram Shah VPO Samana
I
Anil Kumar Pandey

45
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
Karnal Haryana
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
I33
M as italr
1
4e ii
Ajitson RamjiLal
of Shri lgtostFittriBahuDistrict
Karnalllaiyana
47 Jaswant Singhson of Shri Vir SinghVPO SamanaBahu
48 Ram Chander son of Shri Ram Dia VillageJharbari PO

DistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
Palwal
49 Amar son of Shri BhagatRam
VillageJharbariPO
Palwal DistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
50 Pawan Kumar son of ShriHans Raj Ward No 7 Station
Area Nilokheri
51 SubhashChander son of Shri Ram SaupVillageGadhi
Birbal
52 v
Rajo Devi wife of Shri MohallaNear

SaudagarRajput
Post Office Pipli
53 Ashok Kumarson of ShriShri Shobh Raj House No 205
New Ram NagarKarnalDistrictKarnalHaryana
54 Ramdharison of Shri KartaRam House No 2078
Board ColonySector 3 Kurukshetra

Housing District
Kurukshetra
Haryaria
55 SatishKumarson of Shri Des RajVillageDayalpurPD
GurkulUniversity
I
Krishan Lal son of Shri Bala Rani Village

SarwanaPO
PaghanaDistrictKarnalHaryana
57 Roshan Lal son of Shri NarataRam VillageJharbari
PO Palwal DistrictKtirukshetra
Haryana
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 58 Dass son of ShriRattan SinghChhota
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
LH
59 DeviRamson of Shri Bhul Ram Sham ColonyJhasa

Road House
No 32735 Kurukshetra
60 Sultan Singhson of Shri Kehar SinghVillageRaipur
Rodan PO ArjheriDistrictKarnalHaryana
61 Nanak Devi son of ShriRam Chander

VPO Jyotisar
DistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
62 JagjitSinghson of ShriNarain SinghVPOSamana
Kumar
Surender
53 son of Shri Phool SinghShanti Nagar
House No PF No 1736
Haryana
64 Ram Parkashson of Shri ParwaraRam VillJharbari
PO Palwal Kurukshetra
HaryanaPF No 297
65 Ram Singhson of Shri Phool Chand VillageSirsawa
PO Tehsil ThanesarDistrict
66 Birbalson of Shri Jaganilath VPO Samana Bahu
DistrictKarnalHaryana PF No 975
67 SatishKumarson of ShriSardar Ram IPO llilolltheri
WardNo 1 House No
103A DistrictKarnalHaryana
PF No
1471
68 Pawan Kumar of Shri Vijay House No 24

son
Old Press ColonyNilokheri
DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No
V
255
69 Som Parksah son of Shri Ram Charan llouse ND 45

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
Gali No 2 RajivColony
KaithalRoadKarnalDistrictliarnal
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Haryana
U
70 Om Parkash son of Shri Ram

Charan No 35A
Gali No 1 RajivColonyKaithal larnala Karnal
Haryana
71 YogRamson of ShriAmar SinghHouse No 21159
College KirmachRoad Kurukshetra

District
Kurultshetra
HaryanaPF No 88
72 Kumarson of Shri Atma RamKashyap

Rajencler
ButanaDistrictKarnalHaryanaPF
Village No 234
T
73 BalwantSinghson of ShriPritamSinghVillage
PO Udana DistrictKarnal Haryana

Hebatpur PF lto 265
74 Pawan Kumar son of Shri Rajbir

SinghVPO Gaclhi
Jatana DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 1622
75 son of Shri Bidhi Lal VPO Uchana

JoginderSltarma
PF No 3230
76 Hans Raj son of Shri Bhula Ram VPO Samana Bahu
DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF 267
77 Aman Kumarson of Shri Nar SinghVPO Amin Tehsil
District
Thaneshar HaryanaPF No
Menu Singhson of Shri lllann SinghVPO Bibipur
Jattan DistrictKarnalllaryana
79 Gian Chandson of Amin
ThanesarDistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
80 Trilok Singhson of Shri Hari SinghGuru lirpa Agro
Food Sanolhir Road llilokl1eriDistrict Karnal Haryana

PF Ho
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
I256
W mimriuw
81 Siilltholev
Singhson of Shri rJrLlIallJ 3 i
1583 Sector 13 Kurukshetra
82 ManojKumar son of Shri BalbirSinghHouse No
1513 Sector 7 Kurukshetra
83 SatishKumar son ofSi1ri Rameshwar

Dass
VPO
Amin District PF No
2010
84 Pawan Kumarson of Shri Mukand Lal IndriWard No 4
Near Ram LilaGroundDistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 215
85 Singhsonof Shri liansa Ram VPO

Ranbhita Arnin
DistrictKuruksitetra
HaryanaPF No 2150
86 Dharampal
Singhson of Shri BartuRam VillageAnjan
Thalo PO Saclipur NilokheriDistrictiltarnalHaryana

Tehsil
PF No 313
T
87 RajKumar son of Shri BanarasiDass VPO Samana
Bahu DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 1413
88 Chand son of Shri Shiva Ram Village
BaghipurPOBairsalDistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 360
89
I
DharamPal son of Shri ir SinghJharbariPalvval

District
Titanesar Haryana
90 Jeeta Ram son of Shri KhucldaRam JharbariPalwal
ThanesarDistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
91 Amarjit
Singhson of Shri SiryaRam Village
Dera
Majra PO Umri District Haryana
92 AjitSinghson of Shri Hazara Singh VillageSadipur
PO Umri District Haryana

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57 93 Jai Bhagwan
son of Shri Bachna VillageSEJCiiLtl
r
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Ram
GP
PO Umri District Haryana

V
94 JagdishChand son of Shri Hukam Chand VPO Mathana
DistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
95 iViUaTiChad Saintson of Shri Sohan Lal VillageRam

NagarPO Kalal MajraTehsil ThanesarDistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
96 Harlciilasson of Shri Ruddu Ram Village PO
Ahmaclpur
Tigri District Kurukshetra
Haryana
97 SatpalSinghson of Shri Ram Dia Village
Palwal DistrictKuruitshetra
Haryana
98 Tulsa Devi wife of Shri Mahipal

VPO Samana Bahu
District PF W ampl
99 Vishaw Nath Kaila son of Shri Kashl Nath Village
RampurPO llurli via Hari Nagar District
Champaran
Bihar
100 Guitev Rani wife of Shri ilaresh KumarPlot talc 2
Ward No 2 NilkheriDistrictKarnalHaryana
PF 34950323
101 Khushpal
son of Shri Om ParkashPlot No 15 Shanti
Nilokheri
DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF
No 97
102 Rajpalson of Shri Charan No 84
Bhagwan Pipli DistrictKurulltshetra

NagarColonyVPD
HaryanaPF No 288
103 Balbir Singhson of Shri Sunder Lal VillageSamami

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE PO PalwalDistrictliuruksltetra
HaryanaPF ND 1177
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Jha
son of Shri
an Bihar PF
Samsatipur No 244
son
of Shri Babu Ram VillageFefra PO
ore District UP PF No 290
SudarshanRajmarson of Shri Diliu RajmarVillage

PO
SishwarDistrictBalia UP PF No 229
107 son of ShriAjmrSinghVPO Nilokheri
House No Area Wardlllo 2
19Hospitai DistrictKarnal
Haryana
108 ShyamLal son of Shri Bansi Lal House No5935
HospitalMeallilolltheriDistrictKarnalHaryana
109 Shah son
Rajender of Shri Ram S1ahVPO Samana
T
Bahu DistrictKarnalHaryanaPF No 259

110 SargonSharma Shri Amloika
son of
Sharma
V PO
KothalDistrictGaya
Bihar PF No 4499
111 Multan son of Shri SinghRam VillageSamamiPO
Palwal District HaryanaPF No 235
112 Budh Parkash of Shri Data

son
RamHouse No 6831
Guru District Kurukshetra
Nanakpura Haryana
113 Ram Kumar son of Shri VPO Jyotipur
Districtllturuiltshetra
HaryanaPF No 29
114 GangaRam So Bhakti Ram VillageSamamiPO Palwal
115 Eism Singh

S0 ltans Ram VPO TarawriDistrictlltarnal
Anil Kumar Pandey

HaryanaPF No 2052
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH SinghSo Joginder
116Rajbir SinghSTD Babaen Tehsil
I
117
1213 SalHiI1
V
BabaenDistrictKurukshetra
35o
74 cnanniwtl
HaryanaPF No
Surinder
Singh So KapooorSinghVPO Bir Muthang
117 Sharma So Brahmjeet

VPO Ucha District
Karnal Haryana
118 Vinod Sharma S0 Janardhan HNo 311 Pipli District
Kurukshetra
Haryana
119 Jai Krishan S0 Kavi Raj 1195A BhagwanNagarPipli
DistrictKurukshetra
Haryai1a
120 Hari VillageDevsi Tajurbari
District
UPPFrig52
121 Mithi Devi No Atma Ram House No 124 Mahala
Rajput
I
PipliDistrictKurukshetra
Haryana
122 Raghuloir
SinghS0 Ramclya Zirbari PO Palwal
Districtiurulltshetra
HaryanaPF No 124
123 Krishan Bhadur S0 HishyanHouse No 2062 Sec 3
UniariDistrict Kurultshetra
HaryanaPF No
117
124 KuldeepSinghSo Avtar SinghHNo E229 Arjun Gate
PetitionerDistrict
KarnalHaryana
PF No 35
125 So Sheikh Manif RD VillageLadholata
PO Damira Distt BaliaBihar PF No 323
126 AnjuBala Wo Naresh KurriarRo House No 855 Sector 7
Kurukshetra PF No 3157 Petitioners
VERSUS
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
10
of Labour at Chandigarh
HaryanaDepartment
2 The Labour CommissionerHaryanaAt Sector 17
2
Chandigarh
gtSt CL Kalia LabourOfcer Karnal
Sh
74 The DirectorCBI Block No 4 6 th Floor CGO Complex
lodiRoad New Delhi
t 5 The DirectorGeneralof Police Haryanaat Panchkula
6 The SSP Karnal
7 Sh Rashmibhai
ThakrarPresident
58 ShipulbhaiThakrar Vice
29 Sh SilanbhaiThakrar Office bearer
gt10 Rjs SeshadriDirector
Of Tilda Riceand Pvt Ltd Distrct Karnal

address
of 7 to I0 is
P
Tilda Pvt
Ltd 42 Km Stone llH 8 Delhijaipur
RoadGurgaon
11 Sh Dhiraj Patel TildaRiceland Pvt Ltd
ii
Article 226227 of the
of India for
Constitution the issuance of 1 writ of
ceitiorari to quash settlementDated 268
2008 uls 123 of the industrial DisputesAct being a
outcomeof fraud malade intention
and has caused wrongful loss to the petitioners

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
AnnexureP3
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
14
anmw
E9 uicml
uul
ml
im
Writ of mandamusDirecting
A
to arriveat settlementfairlyand
as per the settlementDated and

2282008Annexure
P2
letter dated 1072008Annexure
P1further
the full and final dues to the petitionersie employees
Tilda Riceland Pvt Ltd Samanabahuwho have been

retrenched of VRS in August2008 and grant
all benets
them finaldues bycalculating on CTC and
other benefits as per IndustrialDisputes

Act andalso
count the dues of leave periodsfairly Andpay the
arnountof differencewith in 15 daysalongwith 12 PA
interest from the due date and also grant full

them
as per industrialDisputes
compensation Act and also pay
Rs l Lac as damages
to each of petitionerworkers and
compensatethem for damages

suitably
2 Writ of mandamus the respondentsand

Directing
declare that in future if the posts arises in Tilda Riceland
Pvt
LtdSamanabahuDistrctKarnalthen petitionersshall
have rightover those posts
2 Writ of mandamus the respondent

Directing No 2
and 4 to 6 to inquireinto fraud committedby
and directors of Tilda Riceland Samanabahu

Pvt Ltd
Distrct Karnal with the workers as
petitioner with
wellas
the Govtgeneral public and take appropriateaction
againstthem as per law

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
141
Present
State be
Whether
Pyare referred
and
The
Haryana the
others
Tanisha
126
andothers Date
should
Advocate
Advocatefor
Versus
Advocate
Retirement
AjayKaushik
togthepetitioners
Sirohi
Mittal before
be
orS cheme
for
for
the
reported2009
in
thisCourtthe
inDigest
ofrespondentsthis
respondent5139
petitioners to1 11
3 Petitioners
petition
through
accepted
HONBLE
judgment Reporters
Peshawaria Haryana
short
a u L AVJIIv1u us Lulu
benets
2
RAJIV
CORAM
1 Toof
Lal
IN NALRAIN
ofTHEMs
Mr
Mr HIGH
Alok
HSRAJNA MR
COURT
CWP JJUSTICE
ofDecision
No15640
OF not
CHANDIGARHRAIIV
PUNJAB
DAG
W 26022013
NARAJN
AND
for RAINA
N07
No4
HARYANAAT
V RS A hlea a
dated
settlement arrived at underSection 123 of the
Act 1947 forshortthe Act

Disputes Having VRS they
before this Court directly

challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution the settlement which theyallegewas a resultof fraud

and as one which was by rnala d s The
settlementtheysay has caused wrongful

nancial loss to them A writ of
mandamusis the official

soughtcommanding to redo the
settlementamicably
with Tilda Riceland Pvt Ltd successorininterest of
the added twelfth Shakti Bhog

respondentThe Ltd Karnal the
Foods
presentmanagement
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
143
Director
with
the
its
workers
eitherin
activated amount
management
the
and
itsIt
theper leave
appearsthat
U1 within
had discussionwith
to
aresolution
encashment
the this
settlethe matter
you
pRiceland
the
eace This
to 211
business
proceedings
expressed
designated
following
meetings
disputes settlement
by gratuity
benecial
touching
Dhiraj initiated
great
willingness industrial
ready
taken
LabourcumConciliation
submitting
offing
parleys
lossespof Company
by magnitude f demands
representing
machinery place
charterof
Manager
by and
The
the
compensation
onconciliation
between
formatthe
thein
settlementprocess
terms
Board
harmony
leading settlement
Companythe
arrived
Conciliation
workers
telephonemanagementand
and
and
seriousthe raised
in
regarding
per management
and
sexcluding
Directors
Retrenchments
arrivedat
milfdisput ettlement
2282008 the
industrial
Bonus
writingSeveral
to
Conciliation
Seshadri
V11 nuL3Ugttu
of Aswere owe
Auutr
nour
or are
were
held
Tilda was
A PFarea
of on
Pvt on was
workers
Ofcer Ltd as
Union
Kamal
of
for of amount
gat ID
The
Act
Ofcer
RS on
Act
5 ray were
The a
of
arreor and noticeperiodasper
MedicalLTC 15 increment ID Act
MinimumAmount 75000Seventyve thousand rupeesonly
MaximumAmount 2 00000 Two lac rupeesonbi
Base Calculation I 4000per year
As perdiscussion
all benetswill be calculated
on CTC
The abbreviationCTC stands for Cost to Company It is
statedin para 9 of the petition

thatcomponentsof CTC include Basic salary
20 Bonus 5 Medical PF Part LTC GSLI
Company
Part
The above was an offer and justa draft settlement Four days
afterthe proposal
dated2282008
a draft dated 2682008 under
Section 123 of the Act was circulated to the workers

Union Theofce
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
with
the
and
every
companyand
Notice
any the
the
the
for
year
workers
and
will
therewill
willwill
remaindue
be
band
settlement
how
workers
bearers
vvrand
theonbefore
papersother
is the athat
the
readPayment
thanthe
under workers
and
reinstatement
settlement have
their
in thethe tthe15
theworkersstands
and
the claim the
2682008 establishment
job
this
SubClause
completed
fraud
Thereafter
right areinstatement
nothing halfmonths
compensation
and the
finally
Salary duesunderthe
againstincludes
the
deed
the
nancial
present
equal
under
from
Clause
B he
and
company
the
jobsettlement
management
asicHRA
right
job
dispute
settlement
Section Medical
and
settlement
days
Mjob
salary this
dfor
stopped
3Alongpoor
ated
the
is
2
respondent
signed they
against
nish petitioners
paidrepresenting
alleged
practiced by completely
against betreated
EmIi
petitioners
v l
Act allege
lVUl3DlU
of
which 8
Theirb 5main
were
or HH
cuuv
Union as
ofooftwo
case
bjection
are
was
of
full VRS
of
could h
nalowever
react by
no
or on
of
of no
pay t5
onot
over
of import
3
of
LTA 123
as
on the
8over
of of
of
of
accounts
filed beforeany shall not
authoritycount be entertainedand
any
case shall be treatedsatised and rejected
under
led
this settlementHIHv
It hasbeen averred in paragraph

11 of thepetition
as follows
In the salarycompanyincludedonlyBasic HRA LTA Medical
out of which HRA was never paidearliernor countednow it was a
eye wash onlyBasic LTA Medical were counted salaryin in

steadof CTC Notice periodwas also wrongly
reduced from3
monthto 25 monthsandreducedthebenefitof 15 days

pay which
is against of IndustrialDispute
provisions Act
In shortwhat is is thatthe draftsettlementof 2282008

argued
wasmore benecial thanthe ostensiblenal
settlement by
the parties
duringconciliation as the settlement
against dated
r
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
nottenns
found in
operates toparagraph
Parislttzd
alternative
respect
in inclined
settlement vthe
conciliation in
aThe
for
writ
favour
Section
acceptothe
prayerhas
Since
the fsthe
2009 uch
the
High
been
workmen
report
Court hasanswered
learnedcounsel
and
the do
prayerwithout
is
in
themadein
another
Labour
has
thebeen to
aCentral consideritnecessary
the
settlement
the
aspect
for
reads
maintainable
duressany
the
andto
valid
award
Hefirst
Bureau the
trelies
hatthe
the in to
matter
the
would
fraudlevelled
arrived
basis
point 1990deal
the
aftinnative
argue
sentence
awiththat
Court 1801 to
that
and
the
ibe
Noll5640 proceedings
present
police petition
Corporation
coercion
equivalent petition
against
others
petitioners
follows should
Shramik
SC
I
therefore
underlined
CWP
2682008 as
of Aby
to
Banallegations
Indian
Mr emphasis
Sirohi
123 is
of 8 Oil
of of of
are
of bywwe
Barauni
Acthich
Ltd Renery
not
Court an
and as Pragatisheel
of
of a at
AIR
aHl oniri
Labour resorting
one
viz
to the second
which
course
viz am
eof
Iwith
aspectof the matterand would conne ourselves
aspect
which concerns thebinding of thesettlement
character Section of the
2p
IndustrialDisputes
Act 1947 denes a as
a settlementarrived
at in the course of conciliation and includesa
proceedings written
agreement
betweentheemployer
andworkmenarrivedat otherwise
thanin
the course of conciliation proceeding

where such agreementhas been
bythe partiestheretoin such manner

signed as may be a
copy thereofhas been sent to the officer authorisedin this behalf bythe
and the Conciliation
Government
Officer Section 4 provides
for the appointment

of Conciliation Officers hy the appropriate
GovernmentSection 121 saysthatwhereany industrialdisputeexistsor
is apprehended
the ConciliationOfficer may or wherethe dispute
relates
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
146
to
KJVVL lVo13oau
issued
be to
to course
to matters
casm to a course
course to to
athis
arrived
than
under
settlement
section
all
settlement
shall
Court
signedinhold
Section12
Tribunal
under
the
ZUU9
andarrive
the
the
conciliation
isall
agreement
publicutility
parties
dispute
parties
appropriate
parties
b
binding yby arrived
agreement
arrived
the service
NationalTribunal
athe
Government
subsectionfair
the
arbitration
requires connected
the
in
conciliation
industrial
parties aand
wardin
the
amicable
tthe
Conciliation
between
and
together
Subsection
aproceedings
duty dispute
disputenotice
hetherewith
wain
ith
which
the
under
Sectionthewhere
has
to
memorandum
Conciliation
Section
employer and
sendthe
shall
conciliationsays
conciliation
Section
proceedings become
prescribed
181
Ofcer View
award
be
that
to
notication
manreport
athe
18 orF4
has
IfLabour
cenforceable
ourt
tof
hereof such
shall
been
the
the
settlement
otherwise
proceedings
dispute under
provides
settlement
binding giy
a ator onan or
at at
at on case aor next a a on asa
A
2 of
Act
or 3 of 3A ofE7 O fcer
3 of
of of 10A
w itha
of of sub
b all otherparties
summonedto appearin the proceedings
as
to
parties
the disputeunless the Boardarbitrator
Labour Court Tribunal
or
National Tribunal
as the case may be recordsthe opinion
that they
were
so summonedwithoutpropercause
c wherea partyreferredto in clausea or clauseb is an employerhis
heirs successors or to which the

assignsin respectof the establishment
relates d
dispute wherea partyreferredto inclause a or clause b is
composedof workmen all persons who were in

employed the
establishment ofthe establishment

or part as the case
may be to whichthe
relateson the date of the dispute
and all personswho subsequently
dispute
becomeemployed
in thatestablishment
or part 5 E5i7vloo2Jt
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
147
g Jim
I
tfuurlcll
with
CWP No15640 of 2009
6
It maybe seen on a of subsections
plainreading and
1
3 of section18
that settlements
are dividedintotwo categories i those
namely
arrivedat
outside the conciliationproceedings
and thosearrived
ii at in the course
or conciliation
to
A settlementwhich belongs
proceedings the
rst
has limited application
category in that it bindsthe
merely
partiesto the
agreementbut the settlementbe longingto the second
categoryhas
extended since it is binding
on
all partiesto the industrial
disputeto all otherswho were summoned to appearin the conciliation

and to all persons employed
proceedings in the
or partof the
as the case
may be to which the dispute
relatedon the date
of the and to
dispute all otherswho joinedthe
establishment
thereafter
Thereforesettlementarrivedat in the
a
course of proceedings
with a recognised union will be bindingon
majority all
of the
workmen
even thosewho to the minority
belong union
which had
to the same To thatextent it
objected from
departs the law of
ordinary
The is
contract object to upholdthe sanctity
of settlements
reached active assistanceof the ConciliationOfcer andto
an individualemployee
or
a the
union from scuttling
minority
settlementThere is an that
assumption
underlying a settlementreached
with the helpofthe ConciliationOfcer must
be fairand reasonable and
can therefore be madebinding
safely not onlyon theworkmenbelonging
to the Union the settlement

signing but also
others on
l3
arrivedat in the course of conciliation
settlement proceedingsis
out on par
with an award made by an authorityThe HighCourt
adiudicatorv
was
rightin
therefore to the conclusionthat the settlement
coming dated
4th
August1983was binding
on all the work
men
of the BarauniRenery
the members of Petroleum
including and ChemicalMazdoor
Union
Thougha settlementarrived at underSection the Act

Anil Kumar Pandey 183 of
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL maybe elevatedto the status of an award asdened in Section be an
PHHC, CHANDIGARH 2b to
interim or nal determination
of an industrial is
a
thejudgment
not denying
and
contend
dated
11
that
settlement
latter
low the
4912009 to to tofides to
to toto Jm to
would
Article
were
no226
workers
jurisdiction
judgment
followed
course
paid is
unable
writ
would
Sincemala
jurisdiction
conciliation
feed
are
of reach
theyapproached
by alegal locate
n
Annexure
regard
llegations
Court
the
aof
no help
ofofonotice
the
is
Tilda
P7 admitted
would the
Indiaserved
the
fraud
ea the
ill
Mr
of to have
Sirohi
fraud
be
question
they When
orhad
and
were been
wandis
committed
hether
open
fraud
wherever
equipped through
and 6Ulxn
is
etc
of The
disputeddecide
whether
counsel
9112009iper
twas
awritten
allegedmay
settlement
be
questions
judicialthatthe
rthe
techriicalities
found
Annexure
by
the
se on
all fordirec
In
respondents
discovered
though
same
reasons fact
eview
with
of oexercise
petitioners
arrived
P8 uu
in in writ
representationsthe
petitioners
respondents
ordinarily
the
undoing
Therefore
case
at
fThis they
were
were
of
No4 was
accounts
of a
of
followed by requestto DirectorGeneralof Police Haryana
of Police Karnal and Director Central of
Investigation interventionto undo the settlementand

New Delhi requesting
to make it compatible the draft settlementdated 2282008 The

with
of mala des
allegations set out in the writ petition the respondents
against
are in the following
terms
10 No7 to 11 and other higher
That but respondents officials of the
companywith mala tide intention to

cause the wrongful loss to poor
workmenand wrongful
benet to company w
conspired ith the intention
to cheatdeceivethepoorworkmenanddfaed a deed us 123
of the IndustrialDisputes
Act 1947 totally contraryto settlementdated
and letterdated 1072008 In the settlementdeed uls 123
22232008
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
to to
were seen to to to to
to to to
dto seen
to
J4 follows a ireference
calculated the
is
examined
writ
and
ascertainthe
workersunion
labour
and
11
dated
theworkersunion
It
claim
apprehended
n
Government
In
The
workers
settlement
para it
settlement
dated
worry That
adjudicatewith
Industrial
petition
question
posts
letterbe
arisein
with
deed
settlement
whenthereis
2282008
adjudication
signatures
employees
workers
happen dated
the
Tribunal
thus
also
in
the
the
truth
full
power
four
2682008company
officer
Nationalapprehended
settlement
Undergood
estimated
by be later
well
separate
mentioned
in
deed
and
Court
their
and
In
which
there
that
had
appropriateand
also
Industrial
job
manipulated
along High10712008
with this
taken
makethereference
iluredthe
shall
futureWhich
letter
itfaithepapersand
and
lin
the
halso
couldbe
in
with
ad
way
its
payment
officebearers
jurisdiction
fus
inancial
and
Company
371 days
123 final
lacsodd
dispute the
thesettlement
Tribunal
oss
d
hasbeen G with
writ
is
worker
between
dispute who
the
haveany
which
industrial
workers
underSection
Court
the
dpresident
those
ated1072008
favour overnment
by
neither
between
datedthe
that
company
quaeachate
all
totBefore
connivance
Industrial
president
Industries
123 High
given
allegation contrarycould
would
he
also
has
thereis
and
jurisdiction
intention
held 2682008
tof
hey and
committed
and
uniontdispute
22808
lacks
the hatthe
vtolled
settlement
the
the
partiesand
the
clothe
power
able
taken
126
subjectmatter
paid
right is
It
other
thad
State
Tribunal24 is
poor
the
undue
that
in
deceiveother
the
the
perexistence
reinstate
hemselves
2682008
workers
dues
jurisdiction
workers
para
signed
judge and
such
worker
ated
the
industrialentertain
need
could
cheat
settlement
fraud
workersthe
workers isHere
reference
existencethatthe
could
appropriate
signatures
IIndustrial
the favour
Tribunal
has poor
other
be
fbe
poor
the
it
settlement
got
2282008
bearer
report
Z39 bearer
thingdated
their
dispute
Salary that
been
liisjobor
from oto
I
others Engineering which

qfkajasthan
C mum
and 24 a
no
of
dranone
CTC 12to
will
of
2000 1A on
was
on
SCC it
of on
as
Rs If 16on
as
of
sic an
us is
ofQ
no
no
some
not
caused in
Ltd were and
worker no
some
10 on
as
of
C ofnot
of ofce
Act on
even
make
with
ofce of or
not
anyo
navy facan
as on
fif
147
gQ
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
first
the U1 AUU3
1VUl3UlUanother
settlementis
Settlement
Section
arrived to
settlementarrived
the 18where
industrial
preferred
cormption
adjudication
assumption
impugned
extended
proceedings
recognised
establishment
dispute to to
outsidethe
has
iand
is
sthat
all
divide
and
after
be
arrived
be
goodwill
fraud
majority
likely to
abona
the
the
examiningthe to
conciliation
has
and
but
other
otherswho
the
it could
all
limited
settlement
scanned
and
those
all
sinceit
bunion iscourse
conciliation
persons
settlement
in
etweenthem
otherswho
lead
inducements
proceedings
belong by which
proceedings
allegations
joined
bindingand
lasting to
rnature
reasonable
he
the
may
the
who
in
arrived
free to
employed
be
categories
parties
minority
merely
dispute
help
parties
all at Ato
eachedwith
into
subjectmatter
proceedings
namely
dispute to
scrutinised
summoned
be
it which
could
in
When to
allto
settlement
in
thatit
conciliation
concealment
settlement
that
the
the
the
the
the
bethere
Subsections
the
the
establishment
and
the
appearin
peace
has
there
second
which
isw1been
and
hich to
arelated
establishment
Government thosearrived
workmen
isthe
union
the
is
ilis
facts
arrived
may
the
the to
to
aconciliation
category which
and
that
thereaer
sought the
hthose
as an
date
Conciliation
part the
the
hadto
the
the
industrial
referfor be
yet
category disputeapplication
binding
belonging 1parties
tharuan
belongs
underlying
1
LVV1 course
account
Ofcer
of must
at
of fair
of fide
as
even
not at case
at were
will
2 binds
an more
willor
two
of
A awaid
oron
of
3 ason
it ofof
1 an or2on or as
at
even
with
of
of
of on
atinAa
of
to the same The

9
union having 5
objected recognised themajority of
to protectthe legitimate
membersis expected interest of the labour and
enter into a settlementin the best interestof the labour This is with the
objectto of
sanctity settlementreached with the active
assistanceof the Conciliation Officer and to discourage
an individual
employeeora minorityunion from scuttling

the settlement When a
settlementis arrivedat during

the conciliationproceedings
it is binding
on
the membersof the Workers Union as laid down

bySection 183d of
the Act It would ipsofacto bind all the existing who are all
partiesto the industrialdisputeand who may not be members of unions

to
thatare signatories suchsettlementunderSection 123 ofthe Act The
Act is based on the principle of collective bargaining for resolving
industrialdisputesand for maintainingindustrialpeace This principle of
industrialdemocracy is thebedrockof the as pointedout in the case
Act
of P Virudhachalamv Lotus Mills In all thesenegotiations
based on
A4Mea 150
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
thereafter
tides
been
malice
that
vv 1 the
denied
band
petitioners
regard
questions eing collective
time
havetried
force
in
mala
The
fact
Ihad
the
doU1
into
background
petitioners
by the
to fsettlement
present
question
agitated
accepted nature
thewritten
othe
think
undo
resilefrom statements
the
Settlements
pin
remains
thatthe
issues
the
the
the
eof
etitionxcept
in those
dated to
encompass
thatsettlement
individual
writ
the
present
They unfair
underthe
what
pfiled to
workman
in
specically
etition all
to
the
response
These
settlement
resolve
the to
There
have
be notices
been
is
fraud
grantedand to
to the
rebutted
recedes issued
mala
have
the
facts
in the
IVU1JU1I
equal ofseeking
makingof auuz
not
desto are allegations
as
will
benets
which
to
replies
collectively
require
court
2682008 relief
can which
levelledbe
ne
canout
left sCoercion
eriously
allegations
1 no dispute
on fraud
of and
by this Court Since it will not be fair comment on the issues of coercion
fraud etc in the and either partyand to

prejudice
to determinethose issuesit would be just fair and reasonable
proceed in
the considered opinionof this

courtto relegate to their
thepetitioners
alternativeremediesunder IndustrialDisputes
Act 1947 bygiving
the
libertyto seek a referenceto the Industrial
Tribunal which is an
for thepurposes
remedy as held bythe Full Bench of this
Court in Manolzar Lal v State of Punjaband anotherILR 1983 2 PampII
576 In paragraphs
45 and 7 of the reportit hasbeen opined
As is evidentthequestion
is not as to whatis the scopeof jurisdiction
of
this CourtunderArticle 226oftheConstitution oflndia but the question
is
whetherclaiming underSection10 of the Act
a reference can be regarded
as an or not
alternateremedy There can be no that for the
redress of the grievance an person is pentitled
aggrieved to claim a
es
atthe
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
the
very
reference
and
would
the
then
Government
is
opinion
referenceto
learned
is
will
the to
underSection10
material
andthat
available
how extensive
is
be
entitled
is
it
upon
bound
ifrthe
it
u
intervention
scrutiny
adjudication
refer
showing
depends
parties say
the
is
it to
nderthe
ihim
nis
pertinent
elevant
cease to
the to
to
found
expedient
dispute to
industrial
recordits
aunderthe
facts
refer
the
the
Government
formed that
required for
the
be
any
opinionto
reference
approach
provisions
machinery
Act reasons
ancan
underSection
observe
that
in
the
the
the
that
refer
isthe
this
referencereference
has
the
thatThat
be
may
the
Court
petitioner
because
required
appropriate
remedy for
In
industrial
respect
arbitrarily
adisputes
remedy
dispute to
ifmakesit
uwfor
the
that
is
hereany
aaccording
be
be
is
nd
Government
been
dispute for
the
asked
and
apply that
andshow
Government
125 the
its
communicatethe
Government
because
declined
authorities
being Fmind
it
to
it
tthat
he
is
for
is
proposition does
and
consideration
industrial
adjudication
provided the
exists
for
legally In
shimsthe
clearthat
asettlement
sWhile
urther tthe
matter
iswould
action
ustainable
aggrieved aperson
choose
the
aggrieved
p
certainlyropounded
disputefancies to
entire
little
and
the
the
contrary
remedy be
party
ofappropriate
apprehended
reasonably
a through
rightIt
correct
Govtnot of counsel
asof declining
ofof or Act
ofmeaning
one
Act
of ofAct simply
acannotthereby
norclaimed
case dispute
on
not
of by Act
of course
as
Anobligatory
or icase
ordeclining
not
act
not
mrsrrm2ut directly
same
eAon
not
of
xiss
of by
on
or
a
acceptedthen the 151
objectof the
Governmentin providing for an extensivemachinery for settlementarid
of industrial
adjudication would be frustratedThusthe remedy
disputes
to a workman
provided to claim a reference
him right underSection
giving
is certainlyan alternate
10 of the Act for the redressof his grievance
remedy anddoes ordinarily barthefiling

ofa writ petition
7 As a result of the aforesaiddiscussion
I hold that the mode of redress
providedto a workman byclaiming
a referenceunderSection 10 of the
Act is a proper efcacious alternativeremedy

which ordinarily
would be a
bar to the ling ofa writ petition
In Premier Autamolziles Ltd v Kamlalrar ShantaranWadlce
and othersAIR 1975 SC 2238the Supreme

Court while dealingwith
of Civil Courts vis

jurisdiction a vis the Labour Court in the context
of
alternativeremedy
opinedas follows
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
vvA AwAAAv M
factsandin thecircumstances
of this in
disputes
the two settlements
arrived the
at between
andthe workmen
management
was not the appropriate
remedyIt is also truethatit was not open to the
workmanconcernedto approach the LabourCourtor
for of theTribunaldirectly
the disputeIt is furtherwell established
on the
of this
Court thatthe Government undercertain circumstances
even on theground videStateofBombay
v
KP Krlshnan
and Bombay
9 Unionof Journalists
v
TheState of Bombay can
10
refuse to make a reference If the is
refusalnot sustainablein law
appropriate can be issued
directions bythe HighCourt in exercise
of its
writ jurisdictionBut it does not followfromall this that
the remedy
providedundertheAct is a misnomer of industrial for
disputes
in exerciseof thepower of the Government
adjudication Section
under
is 10
1 so common
that it is difficultto call the remedya
misnomer or
insufficientor inadequate for the purposeof of
the right
or
createdunderthe Act The remedy
liability suffersfrom
but some
is well compensated on the making
handicap
of the referenceby the
wide
powers of the LabourCourt or the Tribunal The handicap leadsonlyto
this thatfor adjudication
ofan in connection
industrial
dispute
with a rightor under the generalor
obligation common law and not
createdundertheAct theremedy
is not exclusive It is But
for the enforcement

surely of a rightor an underthe Act the
obligation
remedy uno atu in it is theexclusive
provided remedyThe in
legislature
its wisdom did not think it fit and proper to
providea very easyand
smoothremedyfor enforcement
of therights
and obligations
created
under
the Act
enforcement the
Personswishing enjoyment of such and
rights
must rest content to secure the remedy bythe Act
The possibility
thatthe Government may not ultimately
refer
an industrial
underSection 10 on
dispute the groundof is
expediency not a relevant
in this regard
consideration
That apartfrom remedy

underthe Industrial under
remedy
haw
Section9 of the Code of Civil 1908by way
Procedure ofling suit
would
also remainopen to them
the petitionerswould
Resultantly also remainfree to avail
before the Civil Courtif electedor advised
remedy In
case such remedy
is
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
not to to opetitioners QDZUXI
industrial
defence
shouldbe
14
appears
excludedfrom
the
the
this
the
date
excluded
be 2013 It
2009
Vis
and
f ordered
discontent
from also
in
the
be
lachesand
theabove
this
made order
stand
available
Inof and
in the
Iimitition90
that
limitation and
had
be the
decided
the
reference
thereafter son
Thall of toa
merits
under
I
rajeev plea
period
26Disposed
just
period
delay prescribes period petitioners
period
V
February
end
so
CWP
till of simmering
to
No15640 receipt
Limitation
lawof
ofwhich
of
would Act
of
o of
limitationaccordingly
no disputes
case
terms
resort may
days
for the
way
the of
JUDGE f RAJZNA
benet
from his
of remain
even
the
n
We i7LAo
Hit H
733
6
winW
WW
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
55
Annexure P 14
Subject Complaint under Section 25N 8 250 read with Us 32
8534 of the Dispute Act 1947 for launching prosecution

Industrial
against the managementof M s Tilda Riceland Private Limited
Samana Bahu Distt Karnal
Dear Sir
Reference your ofce letter no IR 1 256 92 dated 1482013
With reference to the matter you are herebyinformed that on the
complaintsent by you ofce both the parties were summoned to
this ofce four to ve times to resolve the matter Both the parties
were
asked to documents in support of their matter which
was
done by them
ComplainantLabourrepresentativeemphasisedon retracement
VRS as per written letter date 2282008 Whereasall workers with
their consent were paid their full and nal settlement as per
settlement
under Section 12 3 of ID Act dated 26082008
So there is no
justificationregardingthe written letter dated
2208
2008 E
w W
On these grounds acting against the management basis of the
provisionsof Section 25N and 250 of the ID Act does not appear
justied at the present time As all the workers have been received
their full 8anal payout includingGratuity throughChequein the
year 2008
The documents received from the managementare attachedto this
letter for your reference This is sent for information and necessary
action please
True translation
dvocate
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
gi
I5
Annexure P 15
Today on 26082008 an agreementbetween the Workmen Union
Rice Mills OrganizationKarnaland Managementof Tilda
Riceland Bahu Karnal has been arrived at
as per Section 12 3
ofthe
Industrial DisputesAct 1947
Name of the Parties
1 Workmen Representative Mr Mahipal Shri

Singh
Shri MP Sharma ShriBudhi Prakash
Shri Rajpal Shri Rajesh Kumar

SinghShri and
Shri
2 M
sIRLRiceland Private Limited
Shri Anupam Tiwari General Manager HR Shri Rahul
Vaish ManagerHR
Abridged of Dispute
That the of Riceland Pvt Ltd Samana Bahu

Karnal through their Uniongave a General Demand Letter on O4
102007 In this regard various meetingswere arrangedby the
LabourVcumConciliation Officer for the Conciliation proceedings
During Conciliation proceedings management raised their
Concern the continuouslydeteriorating

condition of the
Industryand discussed
the stateof the andworkmen
also agreed to it Voluntary retirement scheme
offered by discussed and with the consent of
both the parties followingsettlement was arrived at Withthis

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THEsettlement all pendingmatters
includingdemand letter givenby
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
I5 7
workmen to Labour
Cum Conciliation Ofcer vide memo number
3207 dated 22102007 stand disposedoff
Terms of agreement
1 That all the workers will give the application for their
acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme Annexure 1

and for payment of their full and nal settlement They can
get format of the the

samefrom
2 the managementwill an acceptance letter to all workers
That
under Retirement Scheme
3 That Managementreserves the right to accept or reject any
application under Voluntary RetirementScheme

The decision of management in this regardshall be final and
binding
4 That the date of receipt of acceptance letter by workmen
shall construe the end workmen service Managementshall
pay the their full and nal payout includingother
benets five working days of issuing the letter of

the
5 An employeewho under this scheme shall be entitled
for the following
a VRS Compensation 15 days Gratuityas per Payment

of GratuityAct completedevery year of Service
b
VRSCompensationwhich is 15 days Salary that is
according to Basic HRA Conveyance LTA and
Medical
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
58
c first three days of ii
All who apply within
announcement of the scheme shall be eligible for

an
earlybird incentive
d All those who qualify under the early bird incentive

shall be paid Rs Thousand
14000 Rs
only per completedyear of serviceHoweverfor any
the amount payable under early bird
incentive scheme shall not be less than Rs 700000 1
Rs Seventyve thousand and not morethan Rs
200000 Rs 2 Lacs Whichever VRS of
the individual employeeexceeds the salary payout of
the employeefor balance years of service

be made to
boththe payments shall the employee
c All who have not completedve years shall
also paidgratuityamount which shall be 15days
salaryfor completedyear of service
f Paymentsof workers paid under this Act will be paid
on to 15
their last payment from 01042008 wage
uniform
g Two 18 half month notice pay
h
Themonthly salary and bonuses earned by August
winbelpaidat the rate of 20 andtthe
LTA and
medical will
payextra
i All payments under this scheme will be done by check
to labor and agreementofcer
j After obtainingthe account of made

underthe VoluntaryRetirement Scheme the workers
have any involvement with the companysjob

will
be left to take from the
this
Anil Kumar Pandey Shrimakds right to reinstate the job is
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH terminated Thereafter there will be no dispute or
57
related work
related to the employmentof
the workers against the service creators The

relationshipbetween the owner and the will
be deemed to be separated from the nal form and no
dispute case related to the reinstatement reckoning

of the job will not be valid before any authority court
and the case filed in person is satised and nished in
this The amount

of outstandingloan will
be deducted from payments made under the VRS
scheme
That the All workers to take back a demand
letter in front of the labor and cum conciliation ofcer
Today the list given by 146 workers on date 26O8
which has been given in the celebration of VRS
and which has been acceptedby the management
Apart from this VRS will pay under the workers

wages after payment of sanction bythe management
theywill also pay the payment
On 26082008 Shri C L Kaliya has Signed before
labor Cumconciliation ofcer
True translation
Advocate
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Annexure I
Date 26082008
RetirementSchemeSeparationScheme
Voluntary
OBJECTIVE
In a rapidly the
increasingintensity
of
competitive activityaffecting of
the viability the companyit has becomeimperative
to restructurevandrationalizeits reduction and to
of manpower
including
manpower
utilization
The therefore launchthis

company retirement schemeas
one of the
means to achievethe abovementionedobjectives
Aaelm
The retirement schemeis for all the in
working
Samanaunit except
Managers amp
above
ppstedin RRDC
postedinMumbai Kandlaoffice
Paddy
purchasers
Paddyunloaders
St
lace Foster
However reserves the rightto acceptor rejectany received
under Voluntary
RetirementScheme withoutassigning any reason or cause
for the
same The decisionof the in this regardshall be final and binding
management
Period of Scheme
The retirement
voluntary starts on August26 2008 and closes
on August
302008
Settlementofthe Accounts
all the accepted
Paymentbf shallbe madewithin five working
daysof its
receipt
Benefits for applyinqunder the SeparationschemeVRS

An who optsunder
thisschemeshall be entitled for the following
ize
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
161
9
VRS compensationwhichis 15 daysSalaryfor every year
completed of
service15days as per Payment
Gratuity of Gratuity
act
o
All who havenot five years shall also be paid
gratuity
amount shall be 15days
salary every year
completed of service
which for
a
All who applywithin first three daysof of the
schemeshall be eligible
for an earlybird incentive whichshall be
their other payouteg VRS over above
Bonus Leave compensation GratuitySalaryLTA Medical
V
o
All those whoqualify the earlybird incentive shall be paidRs 14000
Fourteen
under
per year of service However for
Rs Thousand
the amount payable under earlybird incentive any
less schemeshall not be
thanRs 75000 Rs Seventy five thousand and not
more thanRs 200000
Rs Two lacs WhereverVRSpayment
of the individual
employee exceeds the
salary payout of the for balanceyears of service minimum of both
the payments shallbe madeto the employee
9 Two halfmonthnotice pay
Note
Salary
means sum of Basic HRA LTA Medical reimbursement
5 yearMonthwill mean period Viz full
onlyfullycompleted 12
monthsas a yearand full 30 daysas a month
wouldbe strictlyin accordancewith the
Thesepayments schemesrulesof the
company
Additional Benefits
Balancesalary25allowancestill the relieving
date of the employee
or 31
0
August2008 whicheveris later
o
Providentfund
a
of Earned leavesamp
Sick leavesstanding to credit as on
date of the or
31 August 2008 whicheveris later This encashment
in
shall be made line with the existingleaveencashment rule of the
company
a
Unclaimed LTAamount
a Unclaimed Medicalamount
a
Pensionto the under
covered pensionfund byregional PF
commissioner per ascriteria will provideone time
co
ordinationwith RPFC
for earlysettlement
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
G
AccumulatedGSLI amount till the relieving
date of an employee
How schemewill work

a
A notice alongwith details of the scheme shall be at the notice
board informing aboutthe VR Scheme
toknow
more about the same
can
Human
Resource contact Manager
All interested whowant to apply

for retirementshall be
required to fill the formavailablewith IvMCoordination
and submit
the filled upform to GMCoordination
from GM Coordination
Afterrecommendation the account of the concerned
shall be settled
No retirement shall be deemedto have come into effect unless the
of the company
of
acceptance hasbeen communicatedin writingbygiving a
letter of
their VRS to the concerned
Generalterms and conditions

0
The companymayaccept or the of any employee for
voluntary in
retirementkeeping view the
companysrequirements or
administrative
reason any
The decision in this regard
of the management shall be
final and binding
once submittedunderthis schemecan not be withdrawn
The companyalso reserves its right to
rescindrevokeor anyone of the clause of schemein any manner without any
notice and without
l
any reasons thereof

All the paymentsunder this schemewill be paidbycheque
and such payments
shall be madein presence of the Labour cum officer Settlement
in this regardshall be under section 123
made of Industrial Dispute
act
T
1947 T
who optfor the retirement under this planwill cease

to
service of the company
bein the
for all purposesand will be construed as having left
the services of the companyon their own and will not be entitled to
otherthanthose
benefitswhatsoever any other
offered in the scheme
whoretire underthis schemewill haveno recourse
to dispute
the
payment
receivedunder the schemeon any grounds and their nomineesor
162
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
as Ram
Ram
Ram
A I I V
Anlrudh
Brahma
Amar
Bakshlsh
Nath
Kumar
Parsad Sambaru
Hazara
Nathuni
Ram
L al PLANT
Civil
M y
5
1 ll
ta J
AmarleetSingh
Singh
SinghSingh
Singh
Singh
Slngh I 1 PritamSingh
Singh
Dalel
Bhool
Slrya
gagan Singh
YashPal
Sunder
Ramji
Bhagat
Fathers Singh
Ra Singh
Singh
FRam
lam
Name DG
PQRAS
Civil
SPAP CX Olyilmuiu
section V7
x
oevi
Baibir
Alf
Chand
Arun
AshokKumar Chatar
Datta
Nar
Karta
Shobh Nath
LalJha Poms
SPAP
POHAS
no
PLANT
PORAS
PORAS
Cl
I23 Glad
fl 4Pl
lleu fl1V
Raw
0 6
kQlV
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
1 99
ES Am
A V
Dharam
DharamPal
Hans Bahadur Bir
Shankar
Chootu
Lal
Bhulla
Bharose
Lal
Ram
Ram
Lal Page Clvil
Clvll
WIM
V A V I
Durga
Govlnd
Ganga
Gian Chand
Guizar S
Singh
Ra ingh r 5it5r
Vaidya
Pal
Ram
pa Bahadur
ShyamMohamed
Bhupatl
Singh
Bhartu
Ram
Jan Ram
Ram Valdya
2 PLANT
wlM
PLANT
PORAS
PORAS
Mess
FACE Gl
Guamon5ahewcL
ll
El
n V
3
lf
Y CW
Ha
Cjl
94lby
ML
77
lL ODf
xl04
it Harbllas Rura Ram Civll
ViM1 04I V
5
1 Hari Narayan Piamoev PLANT
a2
in
33
g
lrVllll
i
l
Harl Shanker Ram Khllawan
A Laboratory
ll34 Civil
HarjinderSingh Singh
U
a90 lo147
35 Hukam Chand 5 Shiv Ram SPAP
intzar Khan Jan Mohammad PORAS

38 l 5 lll l
Isham Singh Shanker Lal

V
PLANT
93l7
Isham Singh Babu Flam
38 WM
e9 Jagan Nath Kishna Ram Civil

x ll
ll
JagdishChand Hukam Chand SPAP l7
20 T T7 l
l51 JaglitSingh
p Anil Kumar Pandey 1 Singh
Narain FACE
Q
2017.09.05 13:57
A

ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
V
W V
V
rage i l
Anil Kumar Pandey

S5
58
f539 Flam
V A V
Janeshwar
135
Jeeta
E 2017.09.05Karam
Kedar
Krishan
Lakhvinder
Ram
13:57
Ram
Bahadur
Gadher
Bahadur
Lal
Pandel
alPrasad Ram
Hans
Babu
Vir
Vldhl
Kura
DharamBahadur
Hlra
Telu
Flattl
Saran
Klshan
Parkash
Ram
Flam
Bhal
RamGadher PLANT
Civil
Electrical
V T hg V V
n wdaswant NarainSingh
R
Singh Jagat
Harbhalan
BhoSingh LalSingh ClvllResidence
PORAS
Electrical
Laboratory
FisSt
rs
57
329 Joginder
5 Laxman
Jai
Jal 1ishan
Krishan
Jaswant
Kishan
Kushal
Palif pV
Sharma
gwan Pal
Kumar
Lal XV
WprH
singhvg
A Bhagelu
Popat
om
Ram
Blr
Bal
7Xlg Kavl Singh
BachnaRaRa
Dev
Ram
Ram
RamPandel
Ram
Lal Transport
oo
PLANT
Mess
PORAS
PLANT
WM
PORAS
SPAP
PORAS
PLANT I
J i719
i
4 l
I6
74 dluQff
0
lY4
so Jal Ra X p
C7
QMuVa
Kfl
d2
5ll
M243
dwz
ILYl
jT0ltifx
fl Q9 M
JK
llQWe
l
0
l Z0 O
tV
lg gym
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
ww
ragw
a
5
I
1 f Civil b
l
I
SPAP
4R
M I V
Mahl Pal
lvlahavlrslngl Jhandu
Jug Lal Flam PLANT
Electrical
352 Xl V
gig
MamChand VV Sohan Lal Electrical
Ram
T Amar Singh WM
Mlal QM
galaahadur
W
3
singii SPAP
t2 Pal Mulakh Fla Commercial msix
l
Kumar
A
YllV T
V
pi sPAP n
Rulla Ram PLANT

Em Wm
Multan
2
Singh SinghRam PLANT A
I 3lrblttl T
Ram Chander 1 E3 LY
ad 2
u V I
77 Narsingh T RamjiLal Administration Q

5W6Z
Narender Suranslhgh Transport
Kumarr
79
76 RaghuwarDayal Laboratory
Nanak Dev
NareshKumar 7
V2Wp
5
Nathlam AjmerSingh Mess
f
Om Parkash Mangaisingh SPAPF
X4
a2 Charan
I
OmParkash VllM
RL PLANT y
PLANT
Ax
T
SardarlLal Poms
Anil Kumar Pandey
gal
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Page5
Kumar Hans Rel Clvll

5L L 5
awan Kumar FlalblrSingh Laboratory
Pawan Kumar VljaySingh PLANT 57

A
p 34 342
PawanKumar Mam Chand I
SPAP
Vi
3E3 Pawan Kumar Mukand Lal Transport
7
3t Prem Kumar Pokhar Dass Accounts 4
V
3 A
I
4
s2 Pritam Sln9h Vir Singh as
PyareLal Surta Ram WIM

lrm153
stll V
234
I
Shaina Ram
QM M
95 RaPal 3 VV Singh PORAS
as FlalblrSingh Singh Clvll ll ll

S Q75
5 Ralesh
Kumar Subash Chander SPAP
V 0
kw
398 FlaleshKumar SantoshKumar PORAS 3
Sharma Flam Sharma pk

gi shri
lea W
5 V
4
we Atma Ram DG
my Rajinder
Shahl Shah
VAA402
Ram SPAP
m
02
V
A
RajivGupta DesFla Dispatch
RajoDevl Sodagar
vylo SPAP zu
pos Q
Ram Chander Ram Dia

liO4 POFIAS
l
Karta Laboratory
lms Ram Dharl Ram
Flam Kumar
5V
lif6 tl Bhagatam SPAP 3
i
W
2
V
5507 lnderslngh Transport 7
Ram kumar
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
fr V 2w i5
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
K V g s c V l V
A 0 i
o raguu r a
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
T39 nyam Ram 73
l A A g
Som
Subash
Sudarshan
Sulekh
Suresh
Sushil
Tirlok
Vishwanath
Parkash
Lal
Chand
Chand
Chand
Kumar Dilu
Narain
Phool
Kanshi Chand Clvll
Commercial
Civil
V W 4 l
Yog Dhyan
Singh Singh
Singh
a Dass Commercial
PORAS
FOSTER
Administration Mbl lWV
E A
g
T40
l38
43
2In7
242
45 Sumer
Ta
PHHC,
sorn
Ved Singh
Kumar
H CHANDIGARH
Kumar
Pai
Kumar r71 KuraRam
iiarisingh
lnder
Pala Ralbhar
Swaoop
MulakhSingh
LKanchlci
Kukki Singh
Parshottam
PhoolRarn
Lal RGRAS
Laboratory
llali
FACE
civii
PORAS
PLANT
SPAP
WM
SPAP
PLANT
PLAHT
itl4 VUist1 uo rior1i2
Nath
R WM Mm 3Ars
VI4
01 1byWt llrol
l 3S
i A Vy v
K7
rfV
Vii
7
J8
g ldlql
3 W
ldQQX
4j 01 W ll lrim
l4C7il
Annexure
calculationunderVRS schemeggyment
Sample
Name
Employee Mr Mahipal Date of Joining i91986
PF Number 75
Rateof wages Existing Revlsed15increase

Basic 12086 13899
HRA o o
Conveyance O 0
LTA 604 695
Medical 604 695 subjectto maximumof 125OPM
Bonus 2417 2780
PF 780 780 to maximum
Subject of 780PM
Remarks
Earlybird incentive 200000 14000 per completed yearof service minimum amountRs 75000 maximum amountRs
200000
Gratuity 176409 As per payment of gratuityoctiast basic salary
VRCompensation 194041 15dciyssalarycalculatedon the basis of salary whichincludesBasic HRA Conveyance LTA Medical
Medical As outstanding
Outstanding medicalpertaining to April2008 till August2008on proratabasis
LTA As outstanding
Outstanding LTA on proratci basis pertaining to April2008 till August 2008andLTA balanceif any pertaing financialyears
to perious
Bonus 13899 Calculated201 of last Basic salary AprilAugust2008
V
Calculatedonlast Basic salary for all leaves in credit to employeeas on August2008 subject
Leaveencashment to a maximumnumber of 84 leaves60 EL24SL
5Monthsarrear 9065 Differenceof Basic HRA Conveyance paid in last 5 months
l25Months Notice pay 34747 Sum of basic HRA conveyance
Ru
ID uo3cctl lto 3 mW
4
jug ho rm 9 gC3UU9gt ictefff

legtuJo Lrn4Q rur 5t Tux
V
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
WT
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Name
Employee
Date of birth
igateof joining
Date of leaving Shri PyareLal
01101983
05021983
31082008
Salaryafter 15 increasedCFC
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
Sick
LTA
VRS
VRS
Eanedleave
Casual bird
Medical
Salary leave
Gratuity
Early leave
P3V
Compensationincentive
unto
encashment
encashment
month
compensation
Aug08 Aug08
AprilAugust08
under2SFF
August08yrs
yrsbfservic 15827
9987
3044
223274
200000
228274
792772
29200
18363
47481
2373
9949 165650
200000
182215
631219
11485
13252
28713
9987
7490
2209
13731
8845 835
5111
21710
62624
18768
46059
4342
1000
1104 167060
240952
200000
208825
2ogs25
13207
16706
83530
50118
V
41765
9905
3795
8845
1337063 165650
182215
631219
11485
13252
28713
9987
7490
2209
8845 153808
208825
81321
83530
75302
21405
26610
41755
2415
5221
2422
PHHC, CHANDIGARH Bonus
NtiCUPI6
Arrear for
for FY
amount
the encashment
200809 for
for
of left
worked iif11 200000
1373
7
Claim
Amount claim stat ement
Annex before IndustrialTribunal
ure P 17
Vs
Actualamount VRS in 2008
SNO Name FatherName Amount VRS

Receivedin beforeTribunal
Amount as filed Variance
1 SurinderSingh Narain
Singh 261729 9359458 259
2 RudiDevi NanakChand 734722 1752210 138
3 Jai Bhagwan BachanRam 123769 2514272 138
4 SanjayKumar SadhuRam 236304 561292 138
5 Rajender
Kumar DhaniRam 329305 780875 137
6 KaramSingh BirSingh 585736 1364337 133
7 MangeRam Amar Singh 567455 1315481 132
8 LakhvinderSingh 661145 1529909 131
9 ShivKumar Tula Rarf1E 577910 1334234 131
10 NarinderKumar Surjan
Sihgh 422904 97S810 131
11 Balwan 491134 1118441 128
12 Ram Dhari 579866 1318967 127
13 ManojKumar 574991 1305995 127
14 JaswantSingh 468971 1059557 126
15 HariNarayan 427710 956311 124
16 Sudarshan Rajbar DilluRajbar 4120028 937486 123
17 Mem Singh Mann Singh 214584 477107
7
122
18 SurinderPal Mulak Raj 505479 1122323 122
19 VinodSharma JanardhanDass 518484 1148919 122
20 Aman Kumar Nar Singh 231621 510854 121
21 SushilKumar PurushotamDass 432826 952884 120
22 KrishanLal BalKishan 512923 1127172 120
23 AshokKumar Shobh Ra 594670 1306513 120
24 SubhashChand 361833 7941951 120
25 TulsiDevi 679607 1489637 119
26 GangaRam 463752 1015526 119
27 Pawan Kumar 397084 2368475 119
28 Pardeep Kumar SardariLal 434844 950213 119
29 RoshanLal NarataRam 396664 858617 116
30 Jeeta Ram KhuraRam 568453 1229114 116
31 Amar Nath BhagatRam 445791 962512 116
32 JagieetSingh 409609 883963
NaraiiiSingh 116
33 JoginderSingh Vidhi Lal 145231 312950 115
34 Inthjar
Singh Jaan Mohammad 287689 618953 115
35 RajivGupta Des RajGupta 299239 640668 114
36 Ram Singh Mam Chand 208127 444132 113
37 Jalpal Hansrj 4231240 1023957 113
38 MullaRam RulaRam 416341 885662 113
39 Ram Chander Ram Diya 469332 998324 113
40 Jai Narayan Ramdev 361356 767589 112
41 PayreLal SurtaRam 631219 1337063 112
42 Arun Jha MahenderJha 369750 779782 111
43 Ravinder BadduRam 384801 809936 110
44 TarlokSingh HariSingh 139836 293832 110
45 ReshmaDevi 1 PalaRam 469325 986125 110
46 Som Parkash Ram Charan 6823868 1446271 110
47 Hans Raj BhullaRam 451391 943722 103
48 KamleshDevi RajPal1 415081 86681O 109
49 Rajinder Kumar Atma Ram 4326034 886966 108
50 SaikhYakub ShaikHMunlf 361662 752451 108
51 SatishKumar Des Raj 371904 771703 108
52 PawanKumar
Anil Kumar Pandey
Mam Chand 2218222 6155873 107
2017.09.05
5313:57
Pawan Kumar Sharma 206572 423795
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF THE Rajbir 105
ORIGINAL 54 SatPal Amar Singh 296347 606613 105
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
772
SNo Name FatherName Amount Receivedin Amountas per Claimfiled
VRS beforembunal Vanance
55 sharn Singh ShankerLal 369549 755034 104
56 SomNath LakhiRam 380828 177373 104
57 RamPal Surjan
Singh 129633 264003 104
58 Guljar
Singh Jaan 298517 1507748 104
59 DharamPal Shyam
Lall 470184 955656 103
60 Mani Ram Bal Bahafiur 235068 476686 103
61 Mahenderpal Mulak R33 371598 753255 103
62 DeviRam Bhool Ram4 403872 817475 102
63 RamPal Braha TJeet 307409 620988 102
64 Pala Ram Mam 392008 791478 102
65 Mahabir JhanduRam 479400 965498 101
66 SarojBala DharmPal 117239 236085 101
67 Shyam Lal BansiLal 410980 826634 101
68 Jai Ram Manglu Ram 366555 737075 101
69 RamParkash ParwaraRam 379267 759751 100
70 Shyam Lal InderSingh 404459 808016 100
71 Mam Chand SohanLal 305566 608216 99
72 SulekhChand PalaRam 347585 690304 99
73 AjitSingh RamjiLal 367541 729233 98
74 Om Parkash MangalSingh 3104990 604961 98
75 SultanSingh KeharSingh 351728 694242 97
76 KrishanLal JagatRam 176056 3465840 97
77 DharamPal Bhartu 346267 6810761 97
78 Jai Narain RamSarin 205644 404116 97
79 DharmPal Shankef 425286 833686
N
96
80 AnjuGupta 15080S 293979 95
81 Jogdhyan KukklRam A
82 DharamPal Gandi Ram 345129
3023141 671546
59925o 95
94
83 shwer Singh MansRam 216360 420001 94
84 AmarjlSingh SiriaRam 189728 365848 93
85 RamwhawarDass RattanSingh 222078 427853 93
86 Jagdish
Chand HukamChand 356707 685016
7
92
87 DharamSingh ChhotuRam 416715 800080 92
88 RanbhikSingh Mansa Ram 195611 372321 90
89 Balwant Singh PritamSingh 375840 709606 89
90 SamuaruRajbar 354924 669234 89
91 AjltSingh HajaraSingh 336167 630554 88
92 Pawan Kumar HansRaj 179868 334742 86
93 Birbal JaganNath 217569 402723 85
94 JaganNath KishanChand 2153869 396006 80
95 Singh
Harjinder HavelaSingh 3S1241 627360 79
96 LeelaRam BishanRam 332247 592130 78
97 HukamChand ShivRaib 3Z6350 580814 78
98 HarBilas RudaRam 3413153 6041452 78
gt99JaneshwarParshad Chaman Lal 330345 586826 78
100 RoshanLal shankerLal 330637 583927
4
77
101 IshamSingh 7
BabuRam 3Z8318 565617 72

102 Rajinder
Sha Ram Shah 338907 S83756 72
103 RajoDevi Saudagar 317531 5115770 72
I73
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
L V
47
an
0rr99aro
ax
2az2agt5
JW71vIF
em1
03 gq
31 21 2 l
Z Z9
WEQM
92pm2
1 2
1
2
lt2Tc
2L 21 77177
Mi Mf
gp 5I43
Q 51Mi
W iiQlg L 3135
5Wm
Am434mLP
O3EP
1
1mg9rrm 97
Wz9 m
03 A
44 999944as4379
mm9 Mu W lt27f9i5r
923
3139
4
7
C5V T7I24 5 ciwr

Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Su 2 i
L 2g l G
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
4
rm
73513 31799 23 61 lismii

farm
rirrwf
l1Tlig Ra
l El El3Fl ih1TT Him
zra 1l0icrfi3lt1
27 730
H rl I 81 ve331
Yrx3 ve4Zl7lIiFPJ
l1m1r5
11iawnnaI
faizaFrrxram
Pimlz1sn
125 Ema iiincizi
81714
4
l3U1947J
fFril7761321613 12713 2813 23813 12aa
ti 16913 71013El 31119 i
761718 T91 0 Ptaiiria1riiI

ii 2682003 F
nnem 1rrltH
129
1 30 1 i5Ia1TI tzsnr
7TEll
291 11Tlt7l
rm Er Tzli RmTll 8 l E
3 1 3311113 21
91arqi 76 ailas 11361
agtIc
FTU1lfl7 15Tflli1rTlT in
1
i
1 31337 111m mar
1
l 119
aim 13263W303miT0li 151 7lTll
sin sm 3 vii lI 2
asi131IMat Iiiizi2 Flil W1
182 200
1 31838lnz6 2232001
lrq1r3n i alafIIaif
7lt 3 in aim
1
as srigjrio 1947
v if aal 8J
an 3710 333 10143fl aim

am 2raiTen39 an inn
66 a3 311 2118
fi amawaa 3 ec l
213 ltiIiFI 14lid 1In
9 Er Glclll
5
ni9i11u3i aura2
x
7i Tite
4 I
7 3 31 T6 W4907Rrrnh1Ti
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
V
Wt
6
PO 377 Groupof hamely

ie lPyare Lal So Sh Surat Ram Village
Saman Bahu DisttKamal 2 Lakhwinder SinghSo Sh lIarbajan Singh VPO
Sarrgma Bahu DistrictKarnal 3 RajinderKumar So Sh Dhani Ram HNo 171A
Vikash ColonyMeerut Road Karnal 4 Gali No28
Subhash Chand So Sh PyareLal Vill Barani PO Samana
BahgDistrict Karnal HaryanaPF 193 5 Pala Ram S0 Sh Mam Raj VPO Samana
DistrictKarnal Haryana6 Pardeep Kumar Bahu
Kan131 7 So Sh Sardari Lal VPO Samana Bahu District
Tehal SinghS0 ShSurjitSingh VPO SamanaBahu District Karnal8 Harjinder Singh
So Sh Havela SinghVPO SamanaBahu DistrictKama 9 Balwan So Sh Karta Ram VPO
SamanaBahu District Kama Haryana 10 Jaswam SinghSo ShVir Singh VPOSamanaBahu
DistrictKarnal 11 Roshan Lal S0 Shri Shankar Lal Vill Jhirbari PO Palwal District Kumkshetra
l2eeta Ram S0 Shri Khura Ram Village Jhirbari PO Palwal Tehsil
13 Dharam PalSo Thanesar Distiic7
Kurukshetra Haryana
District Shri Bir Singh Village Jhirbari PO Palwal Tehsil
Kurukshetra 14 Dharam Pal So Sh Shankar Village Jhirbari PO Palwal
ML Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra 15 Isham SinghSo Sh Babu
g Palwal Tehsil Thanesar Ram Village Jhirbari PO
District Kurukshetra 16 Isham SinghSo Shri Shankar Lal Village
Jhirbari earlyshort Birdie PO ThanesarDistrict Kumkshetra 17 Karam SinghS
o
Sh3ir Singh Vill Jhirbari PO PalJvalTehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra 18 Jagan Nath
So Sh KishanChand VPO District Karnal l9 RajoDevi wife ofShri Saudagar
Near Post Office Pipli Distt Kurukshetra 20 Devi Ram son
House No 3945 Sham Colony Jhansa ofShriBhul Ram
Singhg VPO Road Distt Kurukshetra 2 l Aman Kumar So Sh Nar
Amin Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra Haryana 22 Arun Jha So Sh
Mahender lha VPO Kariyan District Samastipur
VPO5 Bihar 23 Sulekh Chand SoSh Pala Ram
SamanaBahu District Karnal 24 Pawan Kumar So Sh Hans Raj Ward No 7 Station Area
Nilokheri District Karnal 25Tarlok SinghSo Sh Hari SinghHNo 30 Prem Colony Nilokheri
26 Surinder Pal So Sl1Mulak RajVPO Samana Bahu District
Saroj Wo Late Sh Dharam PalVPO Samana Kama 27
gala Bahu District Karnal 28Balwant SinghS
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Parshad
68Shytm amp
DistrictBalia
Ram
Karnal
District
Karnal
oChand
Satish
District
Kurukhshetra
35Ishan1
ShP1itam
Ram
Bairsal
Kurukshetra
Samana
Kurukhshetra
Kurukhshetra
Charan
Karnal
Sh
KurukhshetraDevi
BadduRam
Karnal
KarnalRam
Ram
Sohan
Samaria
Chaman
Karnal
Sl1Des
65Rarr1Dhari
Janardhan
Sh
Som
Kurukhshetra
Singh
Rajbir kalal
Pal
Shairna
KhanNath
Ganga amp
1605
Sharma
ShPala
Diya 35
Samana
Ihirbari
Karnal
ShSarnvaru
IBhartu
Chand
Sector
WardKishan
Ram
Ram amp
Garhi
Kaithal
Samana
Ram
Nadana
Kurukhshetra
Jhirbari
Shadi
RamRam
Naresh
Jyoti
Jattan Sar
Chand
Ram
Takhana
Chand amp
amp
Kurukhshetra
PurushotamDass
Talchana
Kurukshetra
Karnal
Karnal
Thanesher
Samana
Karnal amp
Kurttkshetra
Thanesar
Sector
Karnal
Kurukshetra
Karnal
Sarnani
Samani
Taraori
Taraori
TehsilNilokheri
Colony
Nilokheri
Pipli Kurukhshetra
Hans
Seed Karnal
Samaui
Som
Dharam
KurukshetraSamanaBahu
SamanaBahu
Samana
Parkash
Kurukshetra
KarnalKarnal
amp
Nilokzheri
amp
Ramclev
KurukshetraKarnal
Pal
TehNilokhen
lgurukshetraRam
Kurukhshetra Samp
Districtamp
v
Singh
Bhagat
Tehsil
Haryana77Brahma
Arjheri
42Jaspal
39Guljar
Karnal
29Ajit
Rajpal
Ran1Village
ShArjanSingh
Singh
Sairtani
Gupta
S ingh
Singh
Singh
Haryana
VillageFefra
ViIlage
singh
Inthjar
Harisraj
Sanjay
Sl11Iajara
ShJaanMol1arrunad
S ingh
ShMansa
Bhagwan
Haryana
Village
Karnal
Nanak
RajVillageDyalpur
College
RajGupta
Singh
RajivColony
JugSingh
Haryana
Majra
N agar
Singh
Colony
Village
Nagar
Singh
Bhagwan
Colony
Hospital
BahadurHNo2040
Shyam
Vi1lage
Ajit
Village
RamHNo2078
Village
Rajbar
Bhupti
Singh
Nagar
VillageAnjanthli
Pipli
Raj Manglu
Mol1allaTaraori
Majra
RColony
VillageKaithi
amVillage
Haryana
ShRamji
Majra
Village
Chaudhry
Haryana
SinghVillage
Haryana
Kuntkhshet3a
District
Haryana
District
Kurukshetra
POA1jheri
Raj
Vil1age
llospital
JP Haryana
llatyana
i
66Rajiv Karnal 34ManiRam

Mann 37Ranbhik
HA RamVillage JattanSinghVillageRay Dyalpur J
0Q
Pawan
Wclo 0
Vinod
Ram
Sh
District
District
Teh
Villagc
VPO Singh
Karhal
Sharma
76RamChander
Nilokheri
PO
Sh
Mem
ShGandilu
District
District
Sh
52
District
District
SoSh Lal
MahiPal
So
Rudi
Kumar
VPO
So
KumarShAmar
So
UPSo
Nilokheri
So
59Reshma
58 38
District
District
District
SoHNo Sh
Dhiman
S0
So Sh
Sh84
Late
TehIndri
60
48Dha1amBansi
Lal
Sh
6lKrishanvLal
Sh
S0
62
So
So
Wdo
So
S0
Bahu
District
PMahabir
Karnal
Sh
HNo
So 31
78Mahender
49
ShDes
Jhirbari
OLal
Devi
S0
Bahu
Palwal
64Wdo
45
Village Lal
So
District
S0District
Sh
HNo
K
57Sulan
56Guru
30Hari
Pawan
umar
So
Sh
VPO
So Late
Village Pal
Dass
Karnal
District
PO 32
Ram
IlaibatPur
So
Teh
So
So S0
Shlltandu
Po
Mam
Ram
Karnal
S0
Ram Sh
Sl1Siria
HNo
Lal
Chand
63Sushil
ShBal
Sh
Palwal
So
Narain
ShJaan
Kumar
So
Devi
Malda
VPO
Sh
VPO
VPOJai 55
Teh
So
47
District
ShKarta
Ram
HNo476
Bal
PO
UmriSh
33
So 3Sh
Lakhi
Wdo
VPO
VPOSo S0
Mohammad
Distt
Kumar
BibiPur
So
VillageBahu
No
461lukam
Mulak
Leela Sh
7
A
Lal
Bahu
rea
KirmichRoad
PO
PO
Sh
ShSadhu
PS0
ShShMam
5
BaKi
Sh Pur
New
District
Kehar
GaziPur
Palwal
So
Ram
Sh
Palwal So
PO
District
Ror
OKalal Road
Unis
Sh S0
Teh
Marisa
Pur
VPO
Dheru
Dev
VPO
Teh
So
POGuruKul Sh
District
VPO Inder
District
Teh 54
Nilokheri
District
District
Pur Sh
PO
District
Sh
Kumar
Palwal
Ladwa
Ram
So
Teh
R0
Bairsal
Ram
PO
Bishan 45
District
TallthanaPO
UP District
District
Sector
VillagePO
Teh
44Jai
Mulla
PO 3
71
BairsalPur
Rain
District
District
Shiv
PO
Plot
LPO
Ram No2
43
TehIndri
Bahu
alDistrictPur
PO 72Sh
3DisuKurukshetra
74Narain
Ram
PO
VPO
Umri
VPO
Umri
Amar
M
Tehsil
VPOAmin
Village Kamlesh
VPO
41
Tehlndri
District
District
ohalla
Tehsil
Tehsil
lehsil
PO Sh
69
Nilokheri
Teh
So
53
District
Disuict
So District
Teh
Ba1ana
So
PalwalMange
BakiArea
Ravinder
Karnal
Devi
PO Disrt
Taraori
Sh
Rula Tclt
Wd
PO
Nilokheti
Nilokheri
5lMa1n
POGuruKul
Tiilsi 67
70
Pur
District
District
District
Bhulla
Teh
Palwal
alr1
Bahu
50
So
S0
40
79ManojKumar So Sh Balbir Singh VPO Amin Teh
Jeigject
1i
Singh Laddi S0 Sl1Narait1SinghVPO Samana Bahu District Karnal 81
amp District Kurukhshetra Haryana
V
Singh So ShNarain SinghVPO SamanaBahu Surinder

District Karnal 82 Shiv Kumar So Sh Tula
Ram Village Takhana PO Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal 83Mittho Devi Wo Sh
Atma Ram HNo 124 RajputMohalla Pipli District Kurukhshetra 84 Jai Narain So Sh Ram
Saran HNo 4665l Ram ColonyChuna Bhatti District Kurukhshetra 85 Yogdhyan S0 Sh
Kulcki Ram VPO Samana Bahu District Karnal 86Dl1aram Pal So Sh ShyamLal VPO
Samana Bahu District Karnal 87Rameshwar Dass So Sh Rattan Singh HNo 49625 Model
Town
Anil Kumar Pandey
Jhansa Road District Kurukhshetra 88 Krishan Lal S0 Sh JagatRamV PO Kirmach
TehThanser District Kurukhshetra Haryana 89 Pawan Kumar S0 ShVijaySinghHNo 5 Gali
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL No5 Basant Vihar Karnal 90 JagdishChand S0 Shllukam Chand VPOMathana TehThanlter
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
District Kurukhshetra Haryana91 RajinderSo Sh Ram Shah VPO Samana Bahu District 0 Sh
3
w
8111its 1 1892mitt 112 e 11
SeiJttIllL3EEtLi3l1llJ1lilLlt eatiauimei
1me11a1e 18121112 11123 1131114119 9114 11318119 1011
193191 1 191111
0131901219 LLLE gggys 001113
19 91311191 92
11295 112ll9L2l9Ll9l1 93 L3LbL11 811913111912 LMia Math
1192 9 2195 11111La11211 1 gigs 11iio1 1813 1219

gala g 119 91029010 g11b1 12Llhlf1 1923111
gm 1 1163 13121022092 92 1119112111

129
an 1
112 9 1911 15 2111 1112 let
1gamp
19 1111212
19123 1111 111 mg egg LOZZ092 m11blt1
132119
ma
mgtrem 1221 1121g
11111 teeatrgt M212 6002 21119017991 111lg111
8112119 11 mag 0928 1809 8118319
g1199t101r1Lc11 Ltnmge
18 11135 hgtlgtLteLl2119 llilLl1l 09192819 31311519
11411
1369112
hi
a1152g1121sL11J1l g 809 1 109111 119 1119 19111
8113119
92 8ZL 0413 142 magi 8OOZ89Z
1l1191 156918112 119819311 16111912

142111325 19290022922
19
m1eaamehnamg gmE1mgng8019h9l
1212 112 0191
agitate 133 191811011 1219 201 12 12112 aim 921111
hie
1218 120 11111tsE11191111121192

3119 1131
19 1903 2111 1901 86 1e 11c1a1 128
llelll2 1111
an 11 9191lSlgtl1gtl13U15Cl72 t1e1u1uIv OclA 11s
mm nictnio 08 ummict
1101 10111510 sgtt1112m1vdoc1 911N1lS 0S121 91l5l
101 1etuegt119111510 1251129OdA 19I11VlS 0s1Edws901lW1gtI
LL0 lapow Kaav sag ueqoyqmaNKuooopuEN 12eag9 1oNH qutg 1e3ut2wtg 0S
woso1 r2mvgtIustc1I1619l3f1OdA wuerts 121 Ell1lS 0s wmztts 19Pul31t7Ol
trwn oa 9321191 umHwI1oeaI1s 0s l19M3P1lEE91E01 vne11sgt1nmgtI
912153Lteqln 1 101393 ggg oNH121dn9 mutn1 tsareNqg 3112 013 atdngrtfuvZ01
iwnoiilsia I19lgtlllNOd911UEl3321111 men eunv us 08 mmngtt 101
1eu1e1 usta eueumg BqafO taofuteqetg tg 03 124LLll2H0 1eutc JEEBN LLlG MQN
soz NlI F221ttctottsus 0s wumgt1gt1o11Sv66 BHBMBH 75gt
05 treqtrq 982111ure BlA1d 1l9LlEMl9d
2104829 021 115og lSt2l2cI meg 35 mqtg 121193 uexadtueqg tsam ustq
121012119
uI1N 9gtB11A izunw tpitmtsits 08 9101221 11gt11m1sL6
BUEMEH12wgt1us1c1
nqeg euetucg Q A LIJENtmef 8 05 eqxtg 95 eLn2An2H 121119JOlI1SlC nqegELIEUIES
03 1112193 9312 L13
ttefmg oS mum 1opti1eNjg5 cum 1fgtl11Scnqeg
211211125OH tuereg a8etA qutg trefmstrs 0S teduttzg176
1Igt1L021 ma pswtrew QEBIHA wax vpna I18 08 591181 19H 26 dlt9lEEl11SlCI
J12LSl1SOd UEE1 lL1lEI 93ElA IEqlI2 lJqlQ S OS reqf123 1l2S3pl1SZ6 EUEKJBH2uu2f
i
ELI w
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
um Buns us 121
0s elem
mggggtsEBgggtLa1ugtzgLgu
2amp3 m0m
9Lgtl2 Q2lh
EJLLLL32I2J2J1
ll91LED 17
llgtL J32 L 11 a3LELL

m5gJE
M in JALELQ2 191 1 011 gm wag
My au2E
6wyiyW 92Ul
I
2LL1
V
I JlQ2 lLhl1 BJJ2
111 M42 tLL9LJ2U1 12 31

JgL1QLt
E
Joii L13 3 BLJh 1elJiUiL1 UE 94 L933315ELL3
kt UlUE M39
vgtH3ms ebl9 1 hurme n mg a Q HebJL3l2lltJlb g mg Kr gm
1JJ1TliEtJbiLttJEiDi1l3J33iJiiEamp3LL3JJL6
EqlHV gyms ma gs 1ltBJL gm Egg gmmaags
3 ghg E LLLQ
gs 1233 mg 5 ggiagua guma24
9L1Etl9i91b1LM1f9J1hE3Rhf9LRlkhitb5iEEl
lhilLLE191JebE2h12Ji11L5hh3iLE2k3L9
sgLLhubhELLLampgLhL2ihJgEEhELhlhbJQELLampt
2tz nag Lug age 3
Lag kt e0Lgtntag1
nm 1aJh
go 22a
age1gnLLLu1gtL ktttath git LL mag 129112 Agham
192
Jg4L zgtryra g aLg1 rJug we g Lag 931 LLik u1m
L32L9JeLt JchhhH3 E 3 F41L31B342ih 14 9 LLi12JallLbkhhi
hhJ2i2i31ltLlJltLJ2L11JL3LLhIJJclh 15LLJa5u LLLaJga gJpoxak
amp3
lvlbfelqaMans pLghc Ah l3b wan lDltbhblFa Igma gmI2Lnbig
33 LU4 luull Llhhh Lt 132ME 33 9 32 3
1312113
as uauga gm 14 gag Lag we 3 mshgL2
JLLz23 ue mug
in 141 gum Emmm gm gamg gkg gmmg J33EB 21 augiaa
gtghghgnazggmeggkme
gampJ5gehLteggLLmegt
17
081
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
2Lakhvinder
So Sh Dhani Ram
SinghS0 Sh Harbajan
M
Singh 3 RajinderKumar
4 Qfwm I
SubhashChand S0 Sh Pyare Lal
WWW
5 Pala Ram S0 Sh Mam
Raj dC7
6
j
PardeepKumar So Sh Sardari La 7 Tehal SinghSE0
Singh
ShSurjit
41 C7
lt4 rHr
Havela Singh9 Balwan So Sh Karta
X7
10 Jaswaht SihghS0 5Iii Singh
ShVir
74
11 Roshan Lal SP0 Shri
Shankar Lal
FF
l2Jee1a Ram S0 Shri Khura Ram 13 Dharam Pal S0 Shri Bir
Singh K
14
CV
Ram
Dharam Pal So Sh Shankar 15 Isham ffif
SinghSo Sh Babu
2I
16 Krgt 4
Bir Isham
Singh
SinghSo Shri Shankar Lal I7 Kara oI1SoltSh Z
y
JHL41Ej 9
I8JaganNath So Sh Kishan Chand 19 Rajo Devx VlfE ofShn
Saudagar 1
A
fpivQM
20 Devi Ram son of Shri Bhul Ram 21 Aman Kumar So Sh
Nar
V
Singh
gym 2amp1 1 K
v 1
22 Arun Jha S0 Sh Mahender W
Jha 23 Sule Chand SoSh Pala
Ram
24
JWBW
Pawan Kumar S0 Sh Hans Raj 25Tarlok SinghS0 Sh
Hari Singh
3gtltxG 0M
26 Surinder Pal S0 27 SarojBala
ShMulakRaj Vo Late Sh
Dharam Pal
1
4 Hg
28BaIwant Singh S0 ShPritam Singh 297AjitSingh S0
ShHajaraSihgh
A rt
Anil Kumar Pandey
30Hari Narain
Ram So Sh Ram Dev 31 GangaRam So Sh Bhupti
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
LT
TT7 3
32 Jai MangluRam 33 Leela Ram S0 Sh Bishan
Ram S0 Sh
Ram
fm 37
5 55
34Mani Ram So Sh Bal Bahadur 35 Isham SinghSo ShMansa
Ram
h Lu14 SW v7
Ammafgmgm rlt
36AmarjitSinghS0 ShSiria Ram 37 Ranbhik SinghSo Sh
Mansa Ram
Ea qi r
38 InthjarKhan So ShJaan Mohammad 39GuljarSingh 30
ShJaan Mohammad
40 Mem Singh S0 Sh Marm Singh 41 Dharam Pal So

ShGandilu Ram
Q5 guCA 7 U
42 JaspalSo Sh 2
Hansraj43Som Parkash S0 Sh 44Jai Narain r1
S0 Sh Rarndev
ShRam Charan 3 91
HOlL gar
45 Hans Raj S0 Sh Bhulla Ram 46Hukam Chand So Sh
ltZ
Shiv Ram Y vp
V
3c
47 3 u
Mj3i
Ajit Singh S0 ShRamjiLal 48Dhararr1Pal S0 Sh Bhartu
Ram
3 6
W TEgtv
49 Som Nath S0 Sh Lakhi Ram 50 Satish Kumar
Raj SL9
ShDEs
51Mam Chand S0 Sh Sohan Lal 52 Rudi Devi V
Chand 3 I
Qr VII L01
53 Ravir1derSo Sh BadduRam 54 M L Sh l3ula
Ram
M
LJJ L
57lt
55 ShyamLal S0 Sh Inder Singh56
Naresh Kumar
Sh
SltT Devi
r
do
i7 Sultan Singh So Sh Kehar Singh58 Ram Singh S0 Sh
C
g MC
shmaDevi Wdo ShIala Ram
60
J
Ram MahabirfoShJhahdu
V
K751or
6lKrishan ShBaI
ltw W
Anil Kumar Pandey

ShSadhu Ram L Kishan 62 SanjayKumar S0
18
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
P
Surinder
mod Chand
Sharma
Parshad
Diya LateJanardhan
RamChaman
Purushotam Dass PawanPawan
78Mahender So Pal
V V V
79Manoj
Bhagat
Rajbir
Gupta
DLQQHPL
Mange
2231 Singh
SharmaSingh
Singh
Raj ShArjanSingh
Rajpal
Singh
Singh80Iagjeet
66RajivGupta
Rajbar
68ShyamSKumar
ingh Raj
ShNarain Singh82 Amar
1 if72 ev1
mnctV2ez 81
S0
Late
77Brahma
S0
MN
RRam
75Janeshwar
Dlnman
BansiLa1
69
67
ShMam
65Ram
63Sushil
Sh
Sh Mulak
am
Dhari
Kumar
D0LLugfrs
cw
we Kumar
Ram SoS0
Devi
am eS0
So
So
Wd0
S0
S0 ShAmar
ShKarta
S0
Sh
Sh
ShS0
Sh
Balbir
ShSamvaru
Sh Dass
70
74
Lal64 S0Lal
76RamChander
Wd0 ISo
Kumar
cwQ6 a4
7435
Z
ShDes S0
Sh
WvIahiPal
1 So
Laddi
Sh
Sh
So
7 M1
Tula Ram
Shiv Kumar S o Sh
1 Si tf C
Devi W0 Sh Atma Ram 84 Jai Narain So Sh
Saran
I
85
JogdhyanSo Sh Kukki Ram

Q
Lal 86Dharam Pal So Sh
Wig
87Rameshwar
Sh
Kass
So Sh Rattan
W227442
Singh 88 Krishan Lal Sxo
JagatRam
Tt72z
89 Pawan Kumar So ShVijay Singh
ShHukam Chand
Z5 90 JagdishChand SO
L
5amp2T M
91 0 sh Ram Shah 92 Sudersan Rajbar
ww VJS0 Sh
M
Anil Kumar Pandey HE 5 l
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
184
93 Har V
Singh ilas So Sh Ruda Ram 94 RamPal So Sh Surjan
S0 Sh
EQEM
SurjanSingh 96 Birbal S0 sh
JaganNath
4
37 I
97Shaikh 1 63 oh
Yakub S0 Sh Shaikh Munif 98 Ram Parkash So Sh
Parwara Ram
1K pysair
99Ashok Kumar So Sh Shobh Raj
Brahamleet
g Vi
51171 L
101RajinderKumar So Sh Atma Ram 102 Anju Gu ta
LateShNaiesh Kumar Gupta do
IJ14
z7352 J
103Jai BhagwanSo ShBachna Ram Sharma So
104Joginder
ShVidhi Lal Sharma
3W 2742 T 7
L
l050m Parkash S0 Sh Singh 106
ShMa11gal
gar g 3 79
SatpalSinghS o
sh sh Amar Sirigh Q
gbu
221271575
107Roshan
Lal So Sh Narata Ram 108 Dharam SinghSo
Sh Chhotu Ram
Co Sh MLChandna
Nagar
Karnal
Labour Law Advisor 38A Pritani
4waC
3lt E7
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
L
F
V
lsI
Wmqh 3atiic5Qrsi1iaTa1i1u17i1u W
WterrztEr1o73iai
fLQ
317
ErnrzzIr2tc11crrafI
a2tTq13aswiarr5zaa1a1ftwiaHe1W1HTwH1aT
3ruteltSiEtfr1i1rlaaaitao61j
1
mWwgsTIiaWmTra1r2h6quIGrmiT13suaafru5aefia
ERranao1o52o13
2
ia1ostmvm11na1hrl1RaTmaTHiIwliaTaI3ratT
UEaUartavwvrmzWwa1i13lrral1rauEFr1aTwaa1
a7rfsrRQva7iHmirqwmwwafhwnwaiwrlra
aa1Hfa1iTe1Ta1f3eW3neYTHo12GtHo21Eavh3a
ajwwaawaaahmwrfeeawswml
3uElni1522os2oosaIsTlh1at11JiamrlrfIEruaeIiqampraha
sefRvruaaaavRHaazEi231Tm3vssIRQ1ihwarEr
10
3TursTrfi7u3raic5 813 2008 asnaIuErrIfIi2522oa2ooa
wmianTiWrarlmr6qawQm3iaTHfIa7t2mtaawaa1I
aafraafuw1p47aremT1232rsW11T111525oa2oo8aIiqt
gwtaewrimwagqmmmmvmmmvwawo41o2oo7fi
nav1uaa1i731Fi1uaaiarn31m1mHo32o7iE522
1d2oo7TFrrgtttrr1afE5tl111cI718TTrUr
Qwiasiiaigsm
mvearfwwwmWw5ifaTTmaTiWT1waqiER1WaT
21iii1vcI2ie1rfr113t1i1z522oea2oosiivttwenzmaawmmmia
zg1ma2wlrlrFDtHmaHwIsTHf2hE1mwim2uBiaTm61e
Cqqvaifmeauzlmwetaavisvwewmvaaaaaaamwea
3 smutN ah i llE1lt1 it wisiln 3ljdN W5 ii71rmah t mi1
w 36 1thTx ail Leave Encashment PF 3 3TIcIG1T

7
iwmjfg srfinr 3 arfrI EIFIx 131cW 15
HfIE1
win
5g5f5ooo 3
kw wirii aft av Calculation l4000
34brW Tfr 2oooo0
aqttul1aa2rvrasFrsa7ran21ltQirr 9TTllmf1lElcfEFT
sezfr511HaTrIl1UH1947armWi2sHaRWTmEJrasTai1101
sif I FIsF1T 9171135
26082008 Er W91 HidI gemr4lt 1 wk FBI 1 lE1S
Urfr712gT13Et3t1a1amp3tfHWGIT1lr1WBasic SalaryflIR
Conveyance LTA Medical 3lt1T srrfa E7 Chm Fc a1TFrc5 P1cnlt
3TfTlra1I1947 PART
ggt17 3 2rr ff Al1Emoluments Frrfh E
4
aetuaUa3rW3rUqs1arfrR21TffamqamtraNa
11uifawarqaiaTarwnaaauHWravIT1i1aEYwsrFhm
Full and Final Dues to Employee
fvvrta1mavai12zT2IeTzrrnviiT2hlttavrvWa aiiisixtatfiiaitial
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
gs
mash aux Jkklllzlil
ELL Lchaig ram gs 11 LIehkhIN3

Ltnhh JtIV1134ii9 Vi
la ahL lg
11175
lu
4
I i
5524 A j
uhte JULl94 gag9 O thh 2 80809Z lo 900Z80ZZ 343 tiattiheJgjhsth

Lhhhuegta6L69LiigJJ2hihtLa2iht2LmaugggamhhLhigi
Jim J31
is JteJ imsh eLseL huh lei gig h 800ZZOSL slg tan 3
aiaameumesmmebnenmaaxhemmemwahaleek
BhJhQ9ihlLJ4miEiRJiULhLampMiHhktLE1elilR1
V
ImgLc2shihigtL3
ghhahLJhiahmt2ihL2himgiiemhmihimaLmnig2giJhiiga2
Igta192gee 3Ll9LIiJghJg1Jh I2 8002

uaELhaiv2ig1293gt
raeuune2nhmannthmneeaemmua22mah2Mmuse
imgmm
Ew3khERE9EhhhLampthELL9LZVSJl3l1ampamp1l
ism J3 lollN42 is tnhxhJattahmmnisn3J15
ELL lbllIHH saipgj 2b RFD J31
lr Q1 60021010 ll Shh l9Llh
31EEElRJJJllEmL3hhi333Ef8lJmhJiElLBRlamphE
huntamiseneuimanawazeaehahnnumiweettuaeuzmaw
R5EiJEhhNR9Li5ampEt9lEi1EJll13ampEE5lliE 9
U1h1J3kLk341lELgt1lJh1
h matte 1 1521 M1 gimmeJ2
Lg
8O0Zl1dV
932 S932y umaiq V11eo1pa1x1
luawsswoua 01528 Jan wre 2
ti4sLt J
9
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
fmamtaT31HihnairrarTliz6Wriaia7aTm1aTfQ21
1ouETUTsfq7Jrza1afieFheIaeW1viaiqaeiwl17Ji
vstwaarq2rfii2uaaxar1
11aEt5na3uaWrETlfWmaTRaq1faQHe21mHaquH
urQWI1aiwjsaaaNtlWwa133HaWmTaaa
s3Itif1Ff1EITTIsGir1t71tIilfLQs Drawn
cIWIrITf2II 5
FT1T fvnas 2ea2oosafI Eran srfrrzm 251eTm12aaia7it Wqt
3naTfma31HTwa1zwaiawWfr2rRsnHRqnvm1a
a1raTlv2uYuaawHimzWwaamUlranvmTWaih
3nHNnariRa2iwr4a1ErWwEBiH1a7HarTr15Difference of
Claim31iR11m3trEFa1oasi17a1Tra11aR1R1wa1Jus
aramsraeuahai3aa13aTm1ieWraaTqwaBWch1tmaam
esnwnweaifruenaeamgnaakwrtirsimsaniawfhaa
rraamafma2m2Nai2Isi1af1imeNuEwalaa11
3insigtiqrR1oatc13sFrsf1cea1r1TTRiTaI1am1THua1Uau11a1rga
gtTTm1IT ltnT1 rHNsruiIlt Huge 9Isv1ltrgt1E11TWIEITlTE7I11rITI1tIi
2raTI7rIrafRia1ir11uf2awteI1ta7ia7HrtEI
13a3tmauaa3tH1eeawm3iamHqsUnaEam1ez
mTrua2rta1Trf 1
a2ltr11Tt4UiravIir1IavtrU1teIrHh
108 3gem QTEW
chi15II at3cru1 Q cv1ltM
E121 3i1crN ET chiggii
15 1 vtlciui SI
wit ml1inT375 st3Hlt xrwtw
1ICl7l
AgyGCS1
smfr
F51WTlTlUqWlE1WEQSltlWHl5HN1H3WWFf
we
4ltzWIA
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Rice Land
Ltd Samana Karnal
BahuDisgt
1 wz new antes
latmaarm mm 3 ram 14513 2
Hmmtwnafamrw
fi Hf H11r mam fifroatow WW1

FemW Gw 2682003 21
lttarIfEllf
g W 3I
V
aw
my
mug iLO
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
W ge39
Kggm M5
K
wsm aJt1H1Ia1E 3lfHFllTF1947Taf mT12a ah

aFciTfu aim an 26082008 511 8Tl73l ne I13
Uaiahmw
1
fTli3Tlijl
rqm1la1arzmraaIrsarjqn1a1raaIa
s Ff wfi91GRiraiiI
asiwgmemwwaqiaawamnwai
041o20o7r4T2nisariziaI1r1I1iaii16r1rfa1I194T
aaamensmafuwrginaanuwaimaiafiahm
sahraxneaawwaagquwuaiaah
wfawaafaasrmwhfaaiweniim
1z6IJTTITr2 TIE houiviqiWT Facni ichlt4icm1ii wa
almawqeizqsiai
wsm arrar memo number 3207 Wife 22102007 aim w
Eilzanmiawiuarrsinmn
M lm
1 H11 8T4Tn 6rHhT W VoluntaryRetirement Scheme
33 W
WT SWEET lHW 9 GT9 BF
Annexurel
11ErfrtrFrailtraTa1ca11uTa9iTu3i1r1G11arsrq3tr
b
WW 13 am ER W I
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
2 We iii EITgtFin Fi al El Fi Retirement
gm Voluntary
Scheme 3i4rlTQFflelEFI Acceptance
LetteriflI
3 T3 1 EIEFEFI Retirement Scheme at application
accept W rejectma am aicifrum

afwn grtfaavraai ail ea
4 1 tbli EITI Letter FITW ER 3l3l Ti 3333
38 134Il tltlHTT 5 Qlli FllT lEFHTF Acceptance Letter t 5
far sRIaFlt 37l7llTTclT here at IT mfr am
am
Llll4Tl1Fllt3II
54atuaaI2rlii amatamriawawnuan
3oltTElvi37lllt3l1lt7TI
anPaymentof GratuityAct 8llTl ilTl5i Elli REIT EL lcFlQ

1srI73ITIrJyitrn
E5 ll 15 R71El ah WI VRS
bllrlTl5fHui W
Elll l 3lF1Gilli BasicHRA Conveyance

LTA Mediccil Fi EFIHT
3
cvRs12iITeI9I 3 IasiaI Scheme lBrl3TlaTt

Wit Eff Earlybird incentive W3lllrl 1hlT HFQUT I
d Earlybird incentive TauIT5rl Htli 301 TEE Rs14000
W 1ll3lT 7lBlE IEarlybirdincentive El rflIlI

it lTl1ll IlTT
timtr at TFiTFl5lRs7s00o atrq 5lTlElT ll 3 aft
11 Rs2000O0aim at fem
erfwa am
am ant I
IoIII at 37 HI fl 1 rarlrui IRA zl Ehli I

I
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
War siren I
f at VRS arfi am 7 01042003
r 15 eIcII Twit Efrem I

vii lt3ihl
isaTrer200sammrstIGlrtrr1aaar6IiI2420rlrs1r
ataaaraahmqaziqqafilmargrmmwrwwi
7 TI lw Scheme3 81ci71t
vfllT 1681
9rIrart19Ia7rIasrlEIIv4IIW23Ifrraarfr
Taarqriraar
uaaaIamaarmartearenlseat
niaeraierteshaarqratvriarn
aaIr11rrarretat1Iaiaataia1fairman
ae1ramaIreiTIrr2Ir aIvITIaarIi5Iai1Irnarast
amarrwaimvnmeworwzrmmmeamwil
2
Qaeatsriaz Izaianaiaviizaiaasiiaraafaaaraaai
ahawieeniwusrarmaaer
10 Sll 26082008 146

aa at srlir gm 3 Ire F
7
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
am Ital
I
EVlTl
31
11 JEF1EIaI
maa Ficlri grqi
11it
tnI7I tcficigi
eerra air aft 3RWTIl
llHElRT3gtilTll3l7vlTi3IIlt1
6lErrIaisi1IEe1TIiam19Ia1Ti1s1rarruaaaarsiiIit
I Hi ea dl1T
araar ii
aifwr
13s1IIairIII affine
a171sVIsiIerrEIi81t
ere ltllr11h 7
44V
eaw2
ea
taaeeeiiaq rm
RElFll
2 I
Anil Kumar Pandey

2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
H3
TRL Riceland Rrvate Lmited I
ErstwhileTilda Riceland Private

Limited
42nd KM Stone NH8 Gurgaon 122 001 HaryanaIndia

Tel 91 124 3040000 Fax 91 124 3040123 Email posttrIriceIandcom
TRUE COPY OFTHE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING

OF
THE BOARD OF OF THE COMPANY HELD ON TUESDAY

24 2013 A
TSEPTEMBER 1200 PM AT ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 42ND KM
STONE NH8 GURGAON
HARYANA
AUTHORIZATION
OF VAISH HEAD HR
RESOLVED THAT Mr Rahul Vaish Head HR Administrationbe and is hereby

authorisedto deal with sign and verifyall documents papers affidavitsetc and
A
represent the Companyin respectof the matters relatedto VRS 83related Labour
Laws before anyLabour Ofcel Department Labour TribunallLabourCourtorany
in
Court Indiaand to do all such acts and deeds as may be necessaryfor and on
behalfof the Company in this regard
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT certified true copy of the resolution may be

forwardedsubmitted wheneverand wherever necessary to the concerned
authoritiesdepartment for informationrecordand necessary
accordingly action
TO BE TRUECOPY
FOR TRL RICELAND PVT LTD
h
Anil Kumar Pandey
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
Towers Level 15 Nehru Place New Delhi 110019

K
Office Eros
CIN
O
n
IN THE HIGHCOURTOF PUNJAB 8 HARYANAAT
ose No
VAKALATNAIVIA
P Cu fy
Qolo
v rmZ cMa
Ms I Fm44n4hm
L7v VERSUS or 201 AppelonlorPelIlIoner
Q L enl
50 Qfe R spondenl
KNOWALL to whom these presents
shall come that Iwe the undersigned
appoint
ALOK MITTAL
Advocate
Punjab HaryanaHigh Court Chandigarh
Office 302 Sector 10B Chandigarh
Mobile 09872933842
V v
to be the Advocate for the in the

above mentioned cause to do all the acts
following deeds orany ofthemthatisto say
andthings
1 To act appear pleadIn the abovementioned case in this Court or any other Court inwhich the
same may be triedor heard inthe rst instance or in appeal or in Letters or reviewor revision
PatentAppea
or execution or in any other stageof its progress until nal decision
2 To present pleadingsappeals Letters Patent Appeals Crossobjections or petitions for
executions reviewrevision withdrawl compromise
or other petitions or affidavits or other documents
as shall be deemed necessaryor advisable for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages
3 To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitraton any differences or disputesthat
shall arise touchingor in any matter relatingto the said cause
4 To depositdraw and receive moneys and grantreceipts therefore and to do all other acts and
be
thingswhich may necessary to be done for the progress and in the course of the prosecution of thesaid
case
5 To employany other legalPractitioner authorising him to exercise the powers and authorities
conferredon theAdvocate whenever he may think fitto do so
hereby
AND Iwe hereby agree to ratify
whatever the Advocates or his substitute shall do in the premises
and in this connection
AND Iwe hereby agree not to hold the Advocates or his substitute responsible for the result of the
said casein consequence of his absence from the Court when the said case is called upfor hearing
AND Iwe hereby agree that in event of the whole or any partof the fee agreedbymeus to be paid
to theAdvocates remaining unpaidhe shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the above said
case until the same is paidand If any costs are allowed for an adjournment the Advocates would be
entitledtothe same
AND Iwe herebyagree that the Advocates will not be bound to appear for us if the case is
transferred to any other Court or the Court sits at any placeother than its normal placeof sittingand if any
application or Retentino is to be in
filed the case theAdvocates will be entitled to a fresh fee as paidin the
case
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Iwe hereunto set my our hands to these presentsthe contents of which
have been to and understood bymeus
explained
Thisthe day of
amp3 Q 201
Accepted
ALOK MITTAL
ADVOCATE
Anil Kumar Pandey PI9542011
ILA Signatureor
of Clients
Th mb impression
2017.09.05 13:57
ORIGINAL
D1023 05
PHHC, CHANDIGARH
p2g6a Iii
IM

CWP 20102 2017 Paper Book

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CWP 20102 2017 Paper Book

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

IN THE ANDCIVIL

AnnexureP1 120417 6063

5 Annexure P2 Impugned 120417 6466 3

11 Annexure P8 Colly 141111 99113

25 Annexure P8 Co11y 141111 177187 90

P15 Tripartite 260808 189192

29 Power of Attorney 230817 194 3

Similar Writ Nil

No caveat petitionhasbeen received by the petitioner

Anil Kumar Pandey

AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0

Ms TRL Pvt Formerly known as

Presiding Officer Industrial Court Panipat

Petition titled as Ms TRL Reiceland Pvt Ltd Versus Presiding

Officer Industrial TribunalcumLaVbourCourt Panipat and

others in this Honble Court and annexures applicationetc led

before Bench have been annexed with the accompany

Anil Kumar Pandey

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB

AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO of 2017

M s Basic India Limited

Stateof Haryanaand others

260808 The said

2008 Annexure P15

In the said Scheme introduce

Respondentsexcept Sukhdev Singh who are a party

to the present industrial dispute voluntarilyapplied

Respondents have themselves led their PF and

Pension Form and withdrawn the amount of the same

Further the Respondents have also availed tax

benets on the payment received under the said VRS

The said 203 employees including the 108

Respondentswere paid their respectiveamounts

various dates The

cheques and subsequentlyencashed by them and

thereafter depositedthe said money in their respective

bank accounts without any protest by them

Out of 203 employees who accepted VRS 126

employeesfiled a writ petition beforePunjab and

Haryana High Court in Year 2009 During the

pendency of the case Labour departmentled their

written statement giving details to Tripartite

Labour departmentin their reply stated that the said

Settlement was executed voluntarily and no coercion

signing the said Settlement which is in accordance

with provisionsof the Industrial Disputes Act 19472

Further regardingthe alleged conditional settlement

which is the very basis of this writ petition led by

respondents the Written Statement led by Labour

departmentstates that the letter dated August 22

2008 was simply a proposal put forth by the

petitioners to the management it by no stretch of

The said 108 Respondentschallengedthe VRS after

about ve years in the year 2013 by raising an

industrial dispute through their General Charter of

Demand under Section 2 k before the DLC Panipat

However on November 8 2013 counsel for the

Respondentemployeesrecorded his statement before

the office of the DLC Panipat which is annexed as

Annexure P3 That as the Conciliation proceedings

had continued beyond 90 days he therefore