ROSAMMA JOSEPH Vs. ASHOK NICHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.2009 passed in W.P.No.16842/2008 and the order dated 3.9.2010 passed in R.P.No.179/2010.

(2.) W.P.No.16842/2008 was filed by the respondent herein-employer being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No.60/2005 dated 25.7.2008. Appellant herein had raised the said dispute before the Labour Court in view of the order of retrenchment against her-workmen due to lock out for non-complying the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court passed the judgment and award in Reference No.60/2005 and the II party management was directed to pay a sum of `1,26,393.50 paise to the workmen with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of actual payment. Being aggrieved by the said order and award dated 25.7.2008 holding that there was no non-compliance of provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, W.P.No.16842/08 was filed by the employer-respondent herein and when the matter came up before the Court on 17.2.2009, in lieu of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties that the parties have agreed to settle the matter and it was submitted that though the workmen has raised loan to the tune of `35,000/-, the parties have agreed to settle the dispute and the workmen had agreed to receive `60,000/- by way of full and final settlement of all the claims against the management and the management was directed to pay `60,000/- in two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and accordingly, writ petition was disposed off recording the submissions. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, W.A.No.834/2009 was filed by the appellant herein and the said Writ appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file review petition before the learned Single Judge and accordingly the same was disposed of on 19.1.2010. Thereafter, Review petition No.179/2010 was filed by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge contending that no memo had been filed and the workman had not agreed to receive `60,000/- by way of full and final settlement and that she had not authorized her counsel to enter into the compromise and therefore the learned single Judge was not justified in recording the settlement and passing the order. Said Review petition was dismissed by the order dated 3.9.2010, by holding that the Court has not passed order on merit, but has only recorded the submissions made by both the counsel and it is based on their amicable settlement, the order has been passed and there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the order has been passed with the consent of the parties and no review arises against the consent order. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ appeal and the review petition, this appeal is filed by the workman. There is a delay of 631 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the workmen.

(3.) WE have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and scrutinized the material on record.