Joginder Singh Arneja Vs. National Co-op. Consumers Federation of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: I.A 1 in Civil Appeal No. 2315/1995
Petitioner: Joginder Singh Arneja
Respondent: National Co-op. Consumers Federation of India & Ors.
Apeal: I.A 1 in Civil Appeal No. 2315/1995
Judges: V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 03, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Article 136 – Termination of Services of Appellant by Respondent – Writ Peti-tion dismissed by High Court – SLP – Respondent was directed by the Supreme Court to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- to the Appellant within 6 months towards the full and final settlement of the case – Amount paid – But Appellant interpreted the order as amounting to his reinstatement – Proceedings for recovery of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other retiral benefits initiated by Appellant – I.A for the clarification of the earlier order filed by Respondent. On the date of hearing a settlement arrived at by the parties. I.A. disposed of as per the aforesaid settlement.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This is interlocutory application for clarification of an order and judgment passed by this Court on 9th January, 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 2315/95.
2. Against the termination of service, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed. The Appellant thereafter preferred the present appeal. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court was of the opinion that in view of special facts and circumstances, the Appellant may be paid a lump sum amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Relevant portion of the order is extracted below:
“We direct the Federation to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the Appellant in full and final settlement of all his claims against the Federation. Mr. Singh states that the amount shall be paid to the Appellant within six months from today. In case the amount is not paid within the period of six months it shall carry an interest of 12% per annum thereafter.
We make it clear that this order shall not be a precedent for any other case as we have passed the same keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of this case. The amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be spread over the period of service for the purposes of payment of income tax. We also make it clear that in addition to the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- the Appellant shall be entitled to any other dues which are admissible to him under the Rules of the Federation.”
3. In pursuance of the said order, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the Appellant by the Respondent. However, the Appellant interpreted the order as if the order of termination has been set aside and he has been reinstated in service. With this view in mind the Appellant took proceeding for recovery of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other retiral benefits. It is in this con-text, the Respondent has filed this application for clarification that since order of termination of service remained un-touched, the Appellant is
not entitled to any benefit as claimed by him.
4. When the matter came up today, there has been a settlement between the Appellant and the Respondent as a result of which the Respondent shall further pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- to the Appellant within one month from today. The Appellant shall withdraw all proceedings relating to provident fund, gratuity and other retiral bene-fits. The Appellant hereinafter shall not claim or entitle to aforesaid benefits.
5. The interlocutory application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. This order was passed in the presence and concurrence of the Appellant, who was identified by his Counsel.
1. This is interlocutory application for clarification of an order and judgment passed by this Court on 9th January, 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 2315/95.
2. Against the termination of service, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed. The Appellant thereafter preferred the present appeal. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court was of the opinion that in view of special facts and circumstances, the Appellant may be paid a lump sum amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Relevant portion of the order is extracted below:
“We direct the Federation to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the Appellant in full and final settlement of all his claims against the Federation. Mr. Singh states that the amount shall be paid to the Appellant within six months from today. In case the amount is not paid within the period of six months it shall carry an interest of 12% per annum thereafter.
We make it clear that this order shall not be a precedent for any other case as we have passed the same keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of this case. The amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be spread over the period of service for the purposes of payment of income tax. We also make it clear that in addition to the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- the Appellant shall be entitled to any other dues which are admissible to him under the Rules of the Federation.”
3. In pursuance of the said order, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the Appellant by the Respondent. However, the Appellant interpreted the order as if the order of termination has been set aside and he has been reinstated in service. With this view in mind the Appellant took proceeding for recovery of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other retiral benefits. It is in this con-text, the Respondent has filed this application for clarification that since order of termination of service remained un-touched, the Appellant is
not entitled to any benefit as claimed by him.
4. When the matter came up today, there has been a settlement between the Appellant and the Respondent as a result of which the Respondent shall further pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- to the Appellant within one month from today. The Appellant shall withdraw all proceedings relating to provident fund, gratuity and other retiral bene-fits. The Appellant hereinafter shall not claim or entitle to aforesaid benefits.
5. The interlocutory application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. This order was passed in the presence and concurrence of the Appellant, who was identified by his Counsel.
