S. S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) The controversy raised in this Writ Petition is with regard to the payment of bonus. In application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent-workman claimed bonus at the rate of 18.5 per cent for the year 1974-75 and for the year 1975-76 at the rate of 20 per cent. This claim was founded upon the settlement of Nov. 1, 1972 between the workmen and the management. In terms of this settlement the respondent-workman was indeed entitled to bonus at the rate claimed. There was, however, a subsequent settlement of Nov. 9, 1977 between the workmen and the management. By this settlement the terms of the earlier settlement of Nov. 1, 1972 were modified. This settlement provided that no bonus would be payable for the year 1975- 76 and as regards 1974-75 no amount would be paid besides what had already been paid as bonus.
(2.) The Labour Court specifically upheld the validity of the later settlement of Nov. 9, 1977, but went on to observe, "I am of the view that a settlement arrived at after one year of the previous settlement which had completed its full life cannot take away the benefits available to the employees under the previous settlement". On this principle the Labour Court held the respondent-workman entitled to the bonus as claimed by its order of June 3, 1982 (Annexure P/7).
(3.) The Labour Court clearly misdirected itself with its with regard to the true legal position governing the matter in controversy. There is no bar contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the terms of an earlier settlement being varied or modified by a subsequent settlement and consequently once it stood established that the settlement of Nov. 9, 1977 was valid, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to give effect to the terms thereof. The fact that this later settlement modified or varied the terms of the earlier settlement of Nov. 1, 1972 provided to no round for preventing the Labour Court from doing so.;