Trilok Singh vs The Presiding Officer and Another

This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge, setting aside order in proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act").

The appellant/workman was employed with the respondent Bank, which was a cooperative society. His services were terminated in the year 1982. By award dated 24.5.1994, he was ordered to be reinstated with backwages. The management filed writ petition in this Court and during pendency thereof, the parties reached a settlement on 26.9.1995. The workman gave affidavit to the following effect:

I affirm that I challenged the said order before the Labour Court, Gurgaon in appeal. This appeal was decided in my favour on 24.05.1994. Whereby I was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages from 29.01.1982; however an agreement has been entered between me and the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rewari as per following terms.

I affirm that my case has been put in the meeting before the Board of Directors and has been approved for reinstatement from 29.01.1982 with 50% of back wages.

I affirm that I am satisfied with the decision of the Board of Directors. As per the agreement the bank will withdraw the case pending before the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the management was disposed of with the following directions:

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromised with the respondents. She has also produced copy of the order of the Managing Director of the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rewari along with the affidavit sworn by respondent No. 2. In view of this order and the affidavit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition. It is consequently dismissed as not pressed.

Inspite of above, the workman filed application u/s 33C(2) of the Act, claiming 50% of the backwages which were given up, as noted in the affidavit mentioned in the order of this Court. The Labour Court allowed the said claim. On a writ petition to this Court, learned Single Judge set aside the said order with the following observations:

...A workman, who had to face continuation of litigation in the High Court on an issue whether he was entitled to the back wages at all stood to benefit by assuring to himself 50% of back wages. The consideration for scaling down his demand was the non-prosecution of the litigation by the management before the High Court. An affidavit given by the workman would bind the workman and he was estopped from making a claim from the remaining 50% in a separate claim petition. The claim petition was misconceived and the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the same is wrong and accordingly set aside.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there could be no estoppel against law and that unless settlement was in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the same could not be given effect. It was further submitted that the statutory requirement of retrenchment compensation could not be compromised. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Subong Tea Estate v. Subond Tea Estate and Anr. 1964 LLJ 333, judgment of the Patna High Court in Bharat Collieries Ltd. v. Labour Court and Ors. 1969 Lab.I.C. 1424 and judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Phanindra Chandra Roy v. Calcutta State Transport Corporation and Ors. 1991 LAB I.C. 929.

We do not find any merit in the submission raised. The Labour Court could not go beyond the order passed by this Court, in proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Act. The Executing Court cannot go beyond decree. Order of this Court could not be held to be nullity. Giving up of 50% of backwages was not at par with the statutory requirement of Section 25F of the Act. The judgments relied upon are, thus, clearly distinguishable.

The appeal is dismissed.