LAWS(KAR)-2014-1-123

ARUN ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

Decided On January 24, 2014
Arun Engineering Works Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management has preferred this Writ Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge who has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Government under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) The management is a factory registered under the Factories Act and established about 45 years ago. They are engaged in the activity of machining of crank shaft. It is a job oriented activity. The factory is managed by a partnership firm. At the relevant point of time, about 300 workmen were working in various categories. The workmen of the factory were being represented by the Union called "The Arun Group of Industries, Mazdoor Sabha, Belgaum". There was a strike in the factory during the period July 2002 to October 2002. Wages were not paid. Subsequently, the management was constrained to reduce the man power through resignation and settlement. About 286 workmen filed joint application before the Government on 8.3.2003 claiming a total amount of Rs.88,89,303.73 as arrears of salary from June 2002 to February 2003 and bonus for the year 2001- 2002. A show cause notice came to be issued to the management by the Government to show cause as to why a recovery certificate for the amount claimed should not be issued under Section 33-C (1) of the Act. The management submitted a reply strongly disputing the claim made under Section 33-C (1) of the Act. But, they specifically contended that the claim under Section 33-C (1) is not maintainable since no amount is determined either through settlement or award. Further, they contended that the Government cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact and create right to the workmen. Whether the workmen were on illegal strike or not was a disputed question of fact and the authority while conducting proceedings under Section 33-C (1) of the Act has no power to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact and, therefore, they sought for dismissal of the petition. However, overruling the said objections an order came to be passed on 16.6.2003 determining the amount of arrears of Rs.78,15,496.23 in respect of 252 workmen who have signed the claim application and directed the Deputy Commissioner to recover the said amount from the management and remit to the office of the second respondent.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the management preferred Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 34901/2003 and W.P.No. 36943/2003. During the pendency of the proceedings there was a settlement. The said settlement dated 10.9.2004 was signed between Arun Engineering Works and Arun Group of Industries Mazdoor Sabhe. On 10.9.2004, accepting the amount as indicated in Annexure-A, which is a part of the settlement, all the workmen who were the parties to the settlement submitted their resignation on 10.9.2004. They have accepted the amount of gratuity also. In the settlement the workmen had agreed that neither any complaint nor any demand pertaining to monetary settlement is pending against the management. The Trade Union and the workmen agreed that they will not raise any legal disputes of any kind about their service conditions in future against the management. They also agreed for disposal of the Writ Petition and undertook to cooperate to complete the legal formalities both in the pending Writ Petitions and in Application No. 2/2004 pending before the Additional Labour Court, Hubli. Therefore, when the Writ Petition came up for hearing before the Court, it was submitted on behalf of the management that it does not survive for consideration as all the disputes between the parties is amicably settled. Counsel appearing for the workmen though did not dispute the existence of the settlement, he only contended that some of the workmen have not accepted the benefits of the settlement. This Court after recording the submission of both the sides disposed of the Writ Petition as having become infructuous, reserving liberty to the workmen who have not received the benefit of the settlement to agitate the matter.