B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) Whether a settlement after an award between employer, the petitioner, and the workmen, the contesting respondents, can be held to be valid and binding even though it was arrived at in violation of the principles contemplated under Section 6B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (compendiously, the Act) and Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules framed under the Act (compendiously, the Rules), whether for upholding a settlement it must be based on public ground affecting social justice and where an act has been indicated by the legislature to be performed in a particular mode, can that be performed otherwise, are the short but significant questions that fall for determination in these two analogous writ petitions filed by the employer under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the relief for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order : dated July 9, 1986 (received on July 16, 1986, Annexure No. 11) passed by the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. in the form of recovery certificate under Section 6-H (1) of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules, directing the employer to pay the amount indicated, payable to different workmen including respondent Nos. 2 to 10, as the arrears of the wages payable on the basis of an Award dated April 26, 1983 (Annexure No. 1) in Adjudication Case No. 26 of 1982. In that Award, retrenchment of the workmen was held to be illegal and consequently, the employer (Petitioner) was directed to reinstate the workmen with back wages and other amount payable to them, treating their services in continuation since the date of retrenchment. As these petitions involve similar questions for determination, consequently it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.
(2.) The facts of the writ petitions lie in narrow compass. The petitioner had employed workmen (Respondents No. 2 to 10) in Writ Petition No. 13476 of 1986 (for short, the first writ petition) and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 Writ Petition No. 13478 of 1987 (for short, the second writ petition). The services of these workmen were retrenched, under Section 4-K of the Act, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, U.P., Meerut and the Labour Court has given Award dated April 26, 1983 (Annexure 1) in the first writ petition. In the second writ petition also the retenchment of the workmen was held to be illegal and the Court directed their reinstatement with back wages and other admissible amount. It was stated by the petitioner that a writ petition was filed against the Award and some stay order was also obtained, but thereafter some settlement was arrived at on behalf of the employer and the workmen, whereby latter agreed to have lumpsum amounts and thereafter they would not press for their continuance in service. A copy of the agreement/settlement dated August 7, 1984 is filed as Annexure 2 to this petition, and in pursuance of that settlement, the workmen joined, but later resigned. This settlement was sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 1, who wrote a letter to the employer with a direction to get the settlement verified (Annexure No. 3). That settlement was verified. But the letter dated April 17, 1985, was received by the petitioner in both the petitions, indicating that the amounts mentioned in the recovery application of the workmen were not paid and the employers were directed to explain the same. The petitioner explained it, but again another letter dated June 15, 1985 was received (Annexure No. 9), which was replied by the petitioners, but thereafter an order under Section 6-H (1) of the Act was passed by the respondent No. 1 on 9th of July, 1986 (Annexure 11). By this order, petitioners in both these writ petitions were directed to pay the amount to the workmen in the applications. Against this order, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions seeking relief for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated July 9, 1986 (Annexure No. 11).
(3.) Sri S.N. Singh and Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as the matter has been settled between the employer and the workmen and they have joined the service on July 30, 1984 (Annexure Nos. 4 & 5), but on July 31, 1984, the workmen resigned. This settlement was valid and binding irrespective of the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act and Rules 26 & 27 of the Rules which were directory and not mandatory. The settlement could not have been rejected under law and the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner committed a manifest error of law in holding otherwise under the impugned order, directing recovery from the employer in both the petitions.;