Allowed

Mahesh Kumar Asnani v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2018SAW/1067/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of special appeals where parties settled. The court set aside the single judge's judgment and ordered the employer to reinstate the appellant within one week and pay Rs. 10 lakh within ten days, maintaining the labour court award on agreed terms to end 22 years of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement within one week; payment of Rs. 10 lakh within ten days; labour court award maintained with agreed modifications.

Mahesh Kumar Asnani Vs Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B.SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 1067/2017

¶3

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1056/2003

¶5

Mahesh Kumar Asnani, S/o Sh. Chetan Asnani, Aged about 55 years, Resident of Flat No. 145, Sector-15, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶6

----Respondent-Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Devika Tower, 11^th Floor, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Authorised Signatory now Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited having its Registered Office at SPARC, Tandalja, Vadodara-390020 and its Corporate Office at Sun House, Plot No. 201B/1m Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, through its power of attorney holder Shri Jayesh B. Shah presently the Authorised Signatory of M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited working at its Corporate Office at Sun House, Plot No. 201 B/1, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063.

¶9

-------Petitioner-Respondent

¶10

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Labour, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

The Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Shanti Nagar, Opposite NBC, Hasanpura, Jaipur.

¶12

---------Respondents

¶13

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 1066/2017 IN

¶14

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO. 2134/2005

¶15

Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/o Sh. Chetan Asnani, Aged about 55 years, R/o Flat No. 145, Sector 15, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶16

------Petitioner/Appellant

¶17

Versus

¶18

Chief Managing Director, re-designated as C.E.O. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, 19 Nehru Place Delhi-110019. Presently

¶19

putting up at Ranbaxy Lab. Ltd. Corporate Office Plot No. 90. Sector 32, Gurgaon (Haryana)

¶20

Personnel Manager, re-designated as General Manager Human Resources (Industrial Relation) Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited 25, Nehru Place, Delhi. Presently putting up at Western Edge-I, Unit 201- 204 (II Floor), Western Express High Way Borivali (West) Mumbai400066.

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[SAW-1067/2017]

¶23

Distribution Supervisor (D.S.) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 3, Transport Nagar Jaipur. Presently putting up 90-92, Gandhi Path, Nemi Nagar, Jaipur.

¶24

Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur.

¶25

----------Respondent/Non-Appellants

¶26

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achintya Kaushik

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

¶28

Judgment

¶29

12/07/2018

¶30

After arguing the appeals at length, the parties got persuaded for settlement as earlier it was sent for it to Senior Advocate Shri GK Garg. At that time, it was agreed by the parties to settle the dispute by receiving a lump sum amount. A dispute, however, exists on the amount. Whether it is Rs.5 lac or Rs.10 lac?

¶31

The learned counsel for non-appellants submits that agreed amount was only of Rs.5 lac. On verification from Senior Advocate Shri GK Garg, it was given to be Rs.10 lac. It was agreed by the parties to maintain the award of the Labour Court but reinstatement would be from the date of order passed by this court. Accordingly and as agreed, the non-appellants would reinstate the appellant within a period of one week from today. The salary would be fixed as per the direction of the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court is thus maintained with the modification above and, accordingly, the amount of Rs.10 lac would be paid to the appellant within a period of ten days from today and reinstatement within the period given above. The award

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[SAW-1067/2017]

¶34

further makes reference of the continuity of service which order is also maintained.

¶35

With the aforesaid substitution in the award, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The parties would now be governed by the substituted award on agreed terms so as to end the litigation otherwise this court was of the opinion that inquiry conducted by the employer was not fair as no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the workman. It would have resulted in remand of the case which has already taken life of 22 years. Hence, instead of further litigation, the parties have agreed to settle it at this stage and accordingly, the order aforesaid has been passed.

¶36

The appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid. It would be expected from the non-appellants to act without bias against the appellant, rather, it would be taken in rightful spirit thus on reinstatement, he would be accommodated at the place suitable to both the parties.

¶37

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

¶38

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J (M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶39

FRBOHRA

Mahesh Kumar Asnani v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Asnani v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Ors.

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

State of Raj Vs Mayur Sharma and Ors.

Anil Chauhan Vs Smt Geeta Chauhan

Anita Vs Ashok Kumar

Umesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Raj Roadways Seva Nivarat Karamchari

Tulsiram Meena Vs Raj Legislative Assembly Ors.

Nand Kishore Sharma and Ors. Vs State Finance Departmentors