ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) Petitioner company has impugned order dated 22nd September, 2017 made by First Labour Court, West Bengal. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, a settlement dated 4th October, 2016 under section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was duly made between his client and workmen. A recital and term of settlement are reproduced below:- Recital: "The settlement dated 04.11.2010 between M/s. J. Thomas and Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) and J. Thomas and Associate Companies Employees' Union has expired on 31.03.2013. After the expiry of the said settlement, the union submitted its charter of demands but due to un-compromise attitude on the part of the said union, no settlement could be arrived at. In the mean time a computation case being no. 28 of 2014 has been filed before the learned First Labour Court in connection with the claim relating to bonus as per the said settlement. Term: It is agreed that Bonus equivalent to two months Basic Salary and corresponding Dearness Allowance shall be paid to all employees of Category 'C' irrespective of salary or wage drawn in respect of the financial years of the Company ending on 31st March 2014, 31st March 2015, 31st March 2016 and 31st March 2017. For the purpose of computation of the Bonus, Basic Salary and Dearness Allowance will be the Basic Salary and Dearness Allowance (including Additional Dearness Allowance applicable, if any) of each employee as on 31st March of each relevant financial year, as stated above, and it is hereby agreed that such Bonus will be in full and final settlement of the dues of the staff in respect of statutory and/or Customary Bonus and the Management shall be liable to pay and the Union and/or Members of the Staff shall be entitled to claim any further amount on account of Statutory and/or Customary Bonus at any time in respect of the aforesaid years. No other amount, statutory or otherwise, shall be payable on account of Bonus or otherwise, save and except as stated above."
(2.) He demonstrates from annexure-D at pages 109 and 110 of the writ petition, settled amounts were paid to workmen of his client on or before 28th November, 2016. Private respondent no. 5 applied to Labour Court under section 33C(2) of the Act. Others joined and impugned order were made. He submits, impugned order is required to be set aside. Section 33C(2) empowers Labour Court to compute either amount of money a workman is entitled to or the money value of a benefit a workman is entitled to. Workmen joining in seeking to invoke the provision and the Court acting accordingly cannot be sustained under the provision.
(3.) He demonstrates from impugned order, settlement of 2016 was noticed. Said provision does allow the Court to act against terms of a settlement duly made. Finding in impugned order that previous settlement dated 4th November, 2010 was still in operation and binding on the parties is perverse. It is also in excess of the jurisdiction and power granted under said provision. There can be no finding of entitlement of interest when the agreement under which it is claimed stood terminated as expired and thereafter another settlement duly arrived at. Scope of section 33C(2) proceeds on entitlement but does call for adjudication of it. He seeks interference.;