VISHRAM CHANDRAKANT DALVI Vs. DAILY PUBLICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment passed by the Labour Court dated 15th November, 2008 whereby the application filed by the applicant - petitioner herein under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of the amount mentioned in the statement annexed to the application is rejected. The Labour Court held that the applicant could not claim benefits beyond the terms of settlement under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Act. Brief facts are as under:

(2.) The respondent No. 1 who was private limited company registered under the Companies Act, was in the business of publishing the newspaper known as 'The Daily'. It is the case of the applicants - petitioner herein that since May 2000, the respondents had stopped paying them earned wages on one pretext or the other. The union, therefore, filed the complaint of unfair labour practice vide Complaint (ULP) No. 582 of 2000 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court by orders dated 28.6.2000, 4.9.2000, and 6.10.2000 directed the respondents to pay the earned wages and by last order dated 6.10.2000, the respondents were directed to pay entire arrears of earned wages. In the meantime, the Wage Board had passed an order in May 2000 for payment of wages as laid down by the Wage Board. The respondents, however, did not make any payment either by the direction of the Wage Board of by the orders passed by the Industrial Court and as a result, Complaint was filed by the petitioner herein vide Misc. Complaint No. 282/2000 in which process was issued against the respondents. Thereafter, the outstanding wages of October 2000 were paid. In the meantime, on 31.1.2001, the respondent company issued a closure notice claiming that due to drop in circulation and lack of advertisement revenue, it has decided to close down the publication of daily newspaper w.e. from 31.1.2001. On 21.1.2001, a settlement was arrived at between the union and the respondents in respect of the terminal dues of the employees. Accordingly, the terminal dues and other benefits were paid according to the award of the Bachavat Wage Board and not according to the Manisana Wage Board award which came into effect from 1.4.2000. Under these circumstances, therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act vide Application No. 307/2002 seeking a direction directing the respondent No. 1 to pay them their dues according to the Manisana Wage Board award after deducting the amount received by them under the Settlement dated 25.1.2002.

(3.) This application was opposed by the respondent company. It was contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the matters which were not adjudicated and where there were no existing rights in favour of the workmen. It was submitted that the Labour Court could not decide the issue as to whether the settlement which was executed between the union and the company was under coercion and the union was forced to sign the settlement due to undue influence and coercion which was in exercise of the contract.