01 October 2010
Supreme Court
Download

CENTRAL IRON WORKS Vs ANANDA MARUTI MALGAONKAR .

Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-008580-008580 / 2010
Diary number: 21427 / 2007
Advocates: Vs SUDHANSHU S. CHOUDHARI


1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8580 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13913 of 2007)

CENTRAL IRON WORKS & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ANANDA MARUTI MALGAONKAR & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. During the pendency of this matter, out of total of 15  

respondents-workmen herein, 14 of them have amicably settled the  

matter with the appellant  and in pursuance of the settlement, the  

appellant has agreed to pay  a sum of Rs.28,93,300/- to these 14  

respondents. The details of the payments to be given to each workman  

is indicated in the chart filed by the parties. Only one workman,  

namely, respondent no.8-Shivaji Dattatrya Salokhe has not settled  

and as far as he is concerned, he may be at liberty to pursue his  

case before any appropriate forum, if available.  

In pursuance of the order of this Court on 27.08.2007, the  

appellant had deposited Rs.50 lacs.  We direct the Secretary General  

of this Court to remit this amount with interest, if any, to the  

Labour Commissioner, Kolhapur. The Labour Commissioner is directed  

to disburse the aforesaid amount to the 14 workmen in full and final  

settlement of their claims including statutory dues.  The Labour  

Commissioner  is  directed  to  give  the  remaining  amount  to  the  

appellant -Central Iron Works after disbursing the amount to the 14

2

2

workmen.

The appellant has also deposited a  sum of Rs.3 crores and  

6 lacs. The appellant would be at liberty to move the appropriate  

authorities for appropriate relief.  

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 14  

respondents herein shall not pursue SLP(C)No.29520/2010.

In view of this order, the impugned judgment of the High  

Court is set aside and this appeal is,  accordingly, disposed of.

    

...................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI; 1ST OCTOBER, 2010