G B HINGURANI Vs. VINAYAK NARAYAN GOVEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, earlier Complaint (ULP) No. 743/1991, filed by the Bombay Labour Union, Bombay was disposed of for non-prosecution as settled out of the Court. It is observed in paragraph No. 11, while passing the impugned order, by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated March 18, 1998 that except one workmen, all the workmen have accepted their legal dues from the Company and the said workman is the present complainant. The learned Judge, therefore, as there was No. liberty relevant to agitate the issue again being unconditional withdrawal order, has passed the impugned order.

(2.) Apart from above, as so called binding settlement was well within the framework of law and the record and as the parties have already acted upon, unless it is reagitated on the ground of fraud and/or misrepresentation, which is not the case here, it needs to be respected for all the purpose, therefore, the complaint is not entertainable. This Court in Writ Petition No. 2670/2002, Maharashtra Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti and Anr. v. Horizon, the Beach Hotel and Ors., 2006 4 LLJ 50 (Coram: D.G. KARNIK, J.) in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12, has considered various such aspects referring to Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, " Code of Civil Procedure ") as under at pp. 53 and 54 of LLJ:

(3.) Even otherwise, I am in agreement with the above observations, the Industrial jurisprudence, it is necessary and desirable that such Industrial Disputes should be settled, as early as possible and once settled not to disturb at the instance of only one person. The impugned order so passed, on merit, in view of above is unsustainable. The complaint itself is not entertainable. The reasonings so recorded need definite interference. The aspect of res judicata, estoppel, is also relevant, even to the Industrial and Labour Dispute matters. When we talk about the applicability of principles of natural justice; fair hearing; fair opportunity; compromise/settlement which are otherwise applicable in general litigation, are also available in such industrial disputes. If that is so, there is No. reason that the same principle should not be extended in such rejection, basically when the parties have not only agreed and settled the matter and accordingly got the matter disposed of, in the year 1991 itself. The pre-agitation of one worker by the Complainant, is now, as done in the present case, will frustrate the whole purpose and object, as done in the present case and in my view, if it is permitted, it will disturb and it will create complications rather than solving it, because of one such worker-employee though the matter settled, still agitating the issue, this approach, in my view, itself impermissible basically in the facts and circumstances of the case.