- (1.) THE present petition seeks to impugn the order dated 2.12.2013 (Annexure P/7) whereby the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar has dismissed the objection of the petitioner bank and directed the judgment debtor to make the payment in accordance with order dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P/4). The order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Labour Court is also subject matter of challenge whereby the Labour Court, Hisar had allowed the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and directed the respondents to make the payment of the arrears to the applicants as per settlement within a period of two months failing which they were liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount became due till payment.
(2.) A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that a settlement was arrived at on 25.3.2008 (Annexure P/1) before the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer under Section 12(3) of the Act between the Mini Bank Employees Union District Hisar which is now represented through respondent no.5 in the present proceedings and the Kohli Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited Kohli, Hisar. In the said settlement respondent no.4 - the Kohli Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited Kohli, Hisar agreed to pay with effect from 1.10.2006 pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4590/ - to Clerks and Salesman as per pay scale payable by the Haryana Government and the Chowkidar and Sevadar were to be paid the pay scale of Rs. 2550 -3200/ -. The parties were made bound by the settlement and it was to become effective immediately. The said settlement was challenged by the petitioner bank by filing Civil Writ Petition No.102017 of 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 5.8.2009 on the ground that it was a settlement entered into by the society with the employees union and could not be annulled by a a person who was not a party to the settlement. The relevant observations read as under: - "3. The issue in this case is not whether the Registrar has a power to fix consolidated pay. It is whether a settlement entered into by the Society with the employees union could be annulled by a person who is not a party to the settlement. The petitioner -bank may have other remedies to rein in a Cooperative Society acting under its control and take any action that may be possible either under the provisions of the Act under which the Society was formed or by any other terms that are available to the petitioner to enforce its regulations. The power cannot extend to annulling a valid settlement under the Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The Writ petition challenging the settlement in my view is wholly misconceived and it is dismissed. No costs."
(3.) CONCEDEDLY the said order has attained finality interse the parties. Thereafter, it is apparent that Civil Writ Petition No.16367 of 2009 was filed by respondent no.4 -society challenging the settlement dated 25.3.2008 which was admitted on 20.8.2010 and the stay was specifically declined. Subsequently, Civil Misc. Application bearing No.7347 of 2011 was filed which was dismissed on 31.5.2011 by observing that the present action will be subject to the order of the writ petition. Thereafter, another Civll Misc. Application bearing No.9388 of 2012 was filed which was dismissed on 23.7.2012. The said order reads as under: - "Prayer in the application is for grant of interim stay of operation of the impugned settlement arrived at between the workman and the management under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the time of admission of the writ petition on 20.8.2010, stay was specifically declined. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed application for stay, which was also declined vide order dated 31.5.2011, however, it was mentioned that any action shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition. Considering the aforesaid orders already passed on the prayer for stay of the applicant, I do not find any reason to entertain a fresh application for the same relief. Dismissed." The respondent no.4 -society thereafter filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1089 of 2012 against the interim order dated 23.7.2012 which was dismissed on 1.8.2012. In the meantime on 28.10.2010, the union filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court on the basis of said settlement praying for the execution of said amount. The petitioner -bank was arrayed as respondent no.3 in the said proceedings. On 20.10.2011(Annexure P/4) the application was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay the arrears to the applicant. The relief Clause reads as under: - "For the reasons recorded above, the applicant is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the arrears to the applicants as per settlement within a period of two months from the date of order failing which the applicants shall be entitled to recover said amount from the respondents with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount became due till payment. The application stands disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record after due compliance.";