Satya Brata Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal a directed against the judgment and order dated August 6, 1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Matter No. 807 of 1994 whereby Learned Trial Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. challenging an order dated January 25, 1994 passed by the learned Judge, Second Labour Court, West Bengal in Case No. Comp. 12/98 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act allowing the application of the workman who is respondent No. 3 before us.
(2.) The fact of the matter is as follows:- On November 11, 1983, a Tripartite Settlement was arrived at. The settlement had two parts. An employee covered by the settlement had the option either to retain the existing system of D.A. so prevailing on the date of signing of the settlement or to switch over to Industrial D.A. system and normative scale of pay. It was provided in the settlement that those who will opt for the existing system, shall be entitled to ad hoc increase by Rs. 56/- p.m. with effect from January 1, 1981. They will also be entitled to one time lump sum amount of Rs. 1000/- and henceforth there will be no revision of existing scale of pay nor they will be entitled to any benefit in their wages of total emolument. The time for exercising option to switch over to Industrial D.A. was November 30, 1983. The respondent No. 3 did not exercise option to switch over to Industrial D.A. and normative scale of pay within the stipulated time.
(3.) By a notice dated November 27, 1983, the period of exercising option was extended upto December 10, 1983. The respondent No. 3 did not exercise option and continued to enjoy the benefits of the settlement earmarked for those who did not opt for normative scale of pay including lump sum of Rs. 1000/- and ad hoc increase of Rs. 56/- p.m. on January 1, 1984, the period of exercising option under the settlement dated November 11, 1983 was extended upto January 8, 1984. The respondent No. 3 did not avail the opportunity of exercising option within the extended period and continued to enjoy benefit of the settlement earmarked for those who would not opt for normative scale of pay. However, admittedly the respondent No. 3 received the benefits granted to the workman who had not opted in term of the 1st settlement.;