- (1.) CORRECTNESS and validity of the order dated april 4, 2006 passed in W. P. (L) No. 6058/2005 is under challenge in this appeal, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, challenging the validity of the order of the labour Court dated June 22, 2005 in M. J. Case no. 6/2002, has been dismissed, upholding the order of the Labour Court. It is useful to briefly notice the facts, giving rise to the present appeal. Respondent herein was an employee of the appellant-company having been appointed on october 6, 1980. He was dismissed from service on the basis of charge of absent from duties vide order dated September 25, 1982. The respondent-workman raised industrial dispute and a reference was made to the Labour court by the appropriate Government in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' ). This reference was registered as reference case no. 3/1995. The Labour Court after holding enquiry passed an award on December 21, 1999 setting aside the dismissal order with a direction to re-instate the workman in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The award was required to be implemented within three months from the date of pronouncement of the award. Award was pronounced on June 19, 2000. It was on August 14, 2000 the workman submitted a letter to the appellant for settlement, asking for immediate reinstatement and payment of only 50% of the back wages. He further surrendered all his claims of other monetary benefit. A settlement in writing was arrived at between the management of the appellant-company and the respondent-workman on December 5, 2000. Based upon this settlement, the respondent was allowed to join on December 6, 2000. The respondent-workman joined the services and a formal order of reinstatement was passed on december 15, 2000, which was followed by another order dated February 3, 2002 regarding payment of 50% of back wages in terms of the settlement and an amount of Rs. 3,69,491. 57 was paid to the respondent-workman. In addition to this, some other amounts were also paid on account of House Rent etc. The respondent-workman, however, filed a petition on July 9, 2002 under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act before the Labour court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, claiming payment of balance 50% wages and various other claims. The appellant-company contested the application on the question of maintainability and pleaded the settlement, arrived at between the parties. This application was, however, granted by the Labour Court vide order dated June 22, 2005 and the respondent-workman was allowed full back wages in implementation of the original award dated December 21, 1999, pronounced on June 19, 2000. Aggrieved of the order of the Labour court, the appellant-company preferred W. P. (L) No. 6058/2005, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated April 4, 2006. The order of the Labour Court, impugned in the writ petition, was sought to be assailed on the grounds : (i) proceedings under Section 33-C of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and while exercising such a jurisdiction, the Labour Court cannot assume adjudicatory role to examine the validity of the settlement; (ii) the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the workman after having entered into settlement acted upon the same and derived the benefits thereunder and it was only after two years, he filed the petition under section 33-C (2) of the Act; (iii) There was no material or ground for setting aside the settlement voluntarily entered into between the parties; and (iv) some of the claims made by the workman and allowed by the Labour Court were not payable, as such claims relate to performance of actual duties. Admittedly, the workman being out of service for a number of years had not performed the actual duties and, thus, such claims were not admissible under law.
(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman has stated that it was within the province of the labour Court to decide the question of validity of the settlement, while determining the right of the workman, particularly when the issue was raised by the appellant-employer. He has further stated that the settlement arrived at was not a settlement as provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, thus, the Labour Court has rightly declared the settlement as inoperative in presence of the award, passed by it earlier. It has been further urged that the settlement was arrived at after expiry of the period for implementation of the award when it had attained finality and, thus, such a settlement had no binding effect upon the parties and does not interfere with the final award validly passed by the Labour Court, not challenged by the appellant-company.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the order dated June 22, 2005 passed by the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for determination: (1) Whether the memorandum of settlement entered into on December 5, 2000 in between the O. P. management and its workman (applicant) after pronouncement of award dated june 19, 2000 in Ref. Case No. 3/95 is valid and binding upon the claimant-applicant as per provisions of Clause 18 (1) of the I. D. Act, 1947? (2) Whether the applicant is entitled for determination of the amount as per pronouncement of the award dated June 19, 2000 and also for interpretation of the award in this case so filed under Section 33-C (2) in ref. Case No. 3/95 or as per the terms of settlement dated December 5, 2000 the applicant is entitled thereto? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled for money/monitory benefits as per detailed in annexures-A to M? (4) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the applicant is entitled to?;