http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1359 of 2008

PETITIONER: M/s. Bihar Caustic and Chemical Ltd

RESPONDENT: Lallandeo Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/02/2008

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1359 OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.11109 of 2006]

       Leave granted.

       The respondent was working as a security guard.  While he was on duty, the Managing  Director of the appellant-company was assaulted by three workers.  The respondent failed  to take any preventive action against the miscreants.  Consequently, a charge-sheet was  issued against the respondent for the said act of misconduct.  Since the respondent refused  to accept the charge-sheet, another charge-sheet was issued against him.  He tendered his  reply to the first charge-sheet.  The explanation offered by him was not found satisfactory  and a domestic enquiry was held against him.  He was found guilty of misconduct.  On the  basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the respondent was dismissed.           Action had been taken against the respondent in an earlier case.  Hence, he raised a n  industrial dispute and the reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal.  The  Management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act   1947 seeking  approval of the action of  

C.A.No.1360/08 .... (Contd.) - 2 - dismissal taken against the respondent for not preventing the miscreants from assaulting  the Managing Director.  The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the application thereby  declining the approval of the action taken by the appellant.           Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Cou rt  which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.  The Management thereafter filed a Letters  Patent Appeal.         During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A.No.847 of 2003, a  settlement was arrived at between the Management and the workman and an application,  viz., I.A.No.1072 of 2004 in LPA No.847 of 2003 was filed by the appellant seeking  disposal of the LPA in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.  It was state d  in the application that a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- had been paid to the respondent-workman  vide two cheques, namely, Cheque No.671163 dated 15.5.2004 for an amount of  Rs.4,29,285/- and Cheque No.620597 of the same date for an amount of Rs.35,715/-  drawable at State Bank of India, Rehla thus making a total of Rs.4,65,000/- towards  provident fund dues.  The Division Bench, however, without taking note of the application  for settlement, disposed of the LPA by affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.   The said order is in challenge before us.         Notice was issued in the matter on 07th July 2006.  However, counter  affidavit has   not  been filed in the matter so

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

C.A.No.1360/08 .... (Contd.) - 3 - far.  It seems that the respondent-workman has not filed the counter affidavit because of  the settlement arrived at between the parties.         In view of the fact that a settlement has already been arrived at between the partie s  which is not controverted by either of the parties, we set aside the order passed by the  Division Bench of the High Court and hold that the appeal before the High Court shall be  deemed to have been disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties,  the terms of which are mentioned in I.A. No.1072 of 2004 in L.P.A.No.847 of 2003.         The appeal is allowed accordingly.  No costs.