Dismissed

Municipal Council Sikar and Ors. v. Mehmood Khan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2013CW/6317/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice M.N. Bhandari disposed of a writ petition by set-aside of an award based on directions of the Supreme Court in a connected matter. The Court held the non-petitioner is entitled to Rs.2.5 lakhs as full settlement, dismissing the case to avoid duplication.

What did the court decide?

The award is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.2.5 lakhs to the non-petitioner within three months.

Municipal Council Sikar and Ors. Vs Mehmood Khan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6317/2006

¶4

Municipal Council, Sikar & Ors.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mehmood Khan & Anr.

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 05/03/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr. K.N. Gupta, for petitioner Mr. Amin Ali, for respondent

¶9

¶10

It is stated that in the connected Writ Petition No.6318/2006 against similar award, matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10833/2011. Therein, award was set aside in full settlement on Rs.2,50,000/- to the workman. The connected writ petition aforesaid has been disposed of in the light of direction of Hon'ble Apex Court. The prayer is to set aside the award by settling the dispute between the parties on a lump sum amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the non-petitioner.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by the parties.

¶12

The connected writ petition was disposed of by Hon'ble

¶13

Apex Court with following directions:

¶14

“Leave granted.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that respondent No.1 should be paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Accordingly, we direct the Municipal Council, Sikar, to pay an amount of

¶17

¶18

Rs.2.5 lakhs in full and final settlement of the entire claim of respondent No.1 towards his reinstatement and back-wages, within eight weeks from today. In view of this order, the award dated 28.04.2005 passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the impugned order passed by the High Court is accordingly modified to this extent.

¶19

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their respective costs.”

¶20

In view of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the connected writ petition where award between similarly placed workmen and in regard to same controversy has been settled, which is agreed by the parties. In view of the above, the nonpetitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs in full and final settlement of all the disputes. The award is accordingly set aside.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of. The payment as directed may be given to the non-petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.

¶23

FRBOHRA/6317CWP2006.doc

¶24

Certificate:

¶25

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶26

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.

Municipal Council Sikar and Ors. v. Mehmood Khan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council Sikar and Ors. v. Mehmood Khan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Bhardwaj Vs State Treasury and Acco Anr.

Miss Teena Mahawar Vs C S Rajan and Others

Jagmohan Meena Vs State Education Departmentors

Ramnarayan Meena Vs State Fores Departmentors

Municipal Council Sikar and Ors. Vs Rawat Singh and Anr.

Arjun Lal Bariwal Vs Chairman,Central Cop.Bank Ltd.