(1.) The appellant Management entered into a settlement with its Employees' Union vide Annexure 'A' dated 21.01.1987. In terms of settlement, it is agreed by the Management that the total strength of the work force maximum could be reduced to 25% in the existing strength and that the management assured to maintain 75% of the work force in employment. It is also agreed that in respect of every four retirement, three vacancies would be filled and one vacancy remains unfilled. The management entered into another settlement in the year 1993 vide Annexure 'A1'. In the said settlement in Clause (4), it is stated that all the terms and conditions and assurance and commitment provided in the EDP settlement of 1973 as well as 1987 will apply in respect of additional application listed in Annexure 'F' to the settlement. In the settlement of 1993, there is no alteration or recession of the agreement with regard to employment of minimum work force of 75%. The appellant management in the year 1999 declared VRS scheme and about 867 employees took VRS in different cadre in the country. In Bangalore, it is said about 40% employees took VRS. The management did not re-employee the persons to the vacancies created by the VRS in the proportion as agreed in the settlement of the year 1987. The workers' Union complained the matter to the Commissioner of Labour, Karnataka to prosecute the Management U/s.29 r/w Sec. 34 of Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'I.D. Act'). The Labour Commissioner after hearing both the parties, passed the order at Annexure 'F' and granted permission for prosecution under Sec. 29 r/w Sec. 34 of I.D. Act, authorised the Union to file the complaint against the Management.
(2.) The management aggrieved by the said order Annexure-F, has filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The management aggrieved by the said order, has filed this writ appeal.
(3.) The respondents have produced the notification issued by the then Government of Mysore dated 8.2.1963 which reads thus:-