VAITHYANATHAN V Vs. DY COMMR OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-company was a sick undertaking and had been closed down in the year 1986. For four years, payments had not been made to the workmen who had been employed therein. In the year 1990, an investor was found to take over the sick undertaking, and the unions having agreed that some sacrifice on the part of the workmen was also necessary to revive the undertaking, they entered into settlement in the year 1990 inter alia scaling down the amount of gratuity payable to the retired workmen to 85 per cent of the amount. The concerned workmen also entered into such settlement with the management. Thereafter, the amount was paid to the concerned workmen.

(2.) Petitioners are some of those who had signed such a settlement. It is the finding of the authority that they had retired in 1990, or prior thereto, that they were willing parties to the settlement, that they were bound by it that that settlement is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to any further sums by way of gratuity.

(3.) The Payment of Gratuity Act in Section 14, provides that the Act shall override other enactments to the extent of any inconsistency contained in any other such enactments. The settlement entered into by the workmen with the management was under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no inconsistency between Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. A settlement can be arrived at by a workman with the management under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of matters which are subject to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and on which the parties have reached an agreement. Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides thus: