PUNJAB KESRI PRINTING PRESS Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal by Punjab Kesri Printing Press, Jullundur City, against the judgment of learned single Judge, who had allowed the writ petition of the workmen by reversing the award of the Labour Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that Rattan Singh, writ petitioner, was appointed as a clerk by the appellant on May 14, 1969, and his services were terminated on May 8, 1971. He is alleged to have filed a complaint with the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer on May 10, 1971, and according to the management, a settlement/compromise was entered into between the parties on May 19, 1971, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. The appellant has alleged that the workman resiled from the agreement and raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the termination of services of Rattan Singh workman was justified and in order and if not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation was he entitled?

(3.) A preliminary objection was taken by the appellant-management before the Labour Court that the reference was illegal and invalid in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Labour Inspector, Jullundur, on May 19, 1971, and it was the workman who had refused to receive the stipulated amount as per the settlement and had backed out of it. The Labour Court after appraising the evidence on the record (to which reference would be made in the latter part of the judgment) came to the conclusion that the preliminary objection was well-founded, that the reference was baseless and void and dismissed the same. The workman filed a writ petition, challenging the award of the Labour Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding that neither the settlement between the parties was in Form H prescribed under the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules, 1958 (in short 'rules'), nor other formalities required under Rule 58 of the Rules had been complied with, and, therefore, the alleged settlement was not binding in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'), as the requisite formalities of the settlement had not been complied with.