Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Kota wherein application of the petitioner-workman under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been dismissed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Kota. It was pleaded in the application that he was employed with Oriental Power Cables Ltd. (employer) and all of a sudden, the factory was closed in the year 1986. The petitioner pleaded that after closure of the factory, the matter was referred to Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, he is entitled for his salary as the same was not paid to him and accordingly, he calculated amount of Rs.85,87,193/- The claim of the petitioner was based on fact that respondent-employer had not closed the factory as per law and after 1986, the petitioner was going to the factory gate and marked his attendance and as such, prayer was made in the application for claiming the amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(3.) The employer filed reply to the application filed by the petitioner and he pleaded that the factory was closed in the month of February, 1986 and the relationship of employee and employer came to be end on 30.04.1986. The employer pleaded that since factory was closed after 30.04.1986, there was no question of attendance being marked by the petitioner and statement of the petitioner that he was marking his attendance, was absolutely incorrect. The employer further pleaded in reply to his application that the petitioner was a member of Oriental Power Cables Ltd. Union affiliated to CITU with Registration No.78/64. The employer pleaded that there was already a settlement, which had taken place between the members of the Union and Management and as such, on 28.02.2008, a settlement was arrived as per Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer pleaded that in the year 1986 at the time of closure of the factory, there were total 505 workmen, 175 clerks and supervisory staff, and total payment of Rs.412 lacs was made in respect of claims of the employees. The employer further pleaded that the different workmen, including the petitioner had accepted full and final payment, and they had submitted receipt to that effect also. The Management further pleaded that the settlement dated 28.02.2008 was binding on the employee-petitioner and as such, after receiving the amount of compensation, the claim under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the scope of 33(c)(2) did not cover the cases where already settlement had taken place and the scope of Section 33(c) (2) was like an executing court.;