RAJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) It appears that there was a dispute between the parties. The matter was before the labour Court. The Labour Court decided in favour of the employee. The employer filed a writ petition in this Court, which is pending. During the pendency of that writ petition, it appears that a settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 2 and the petitioners -employees. That settlement is dated July 17, 2006. That settlement contemplates payments being made by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners. Payments were not being made. Therefore, an application was moved under section 33c (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Deputy Chief Labour commissioner (Central). That application has been rejected by that Officer by communication dated September 11, 2006 for the reason that as required by the provisions of Section 2 (p) of the industrial Disputes Act, the settlement has not been sent through the authorised Officer and it is this communication which is challenged in this Petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. Section 33c (1) of the Industrial disputes Act reads as under:-