Valliammal vs Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat) and Others

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus in directing the second Respondent

to implement the Settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Na. Ka. No. 1067/2000 dated September 18, 2000 entered into

between the Petitioner and the second Respondent before the Labour Officer, Cuddalore.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Worker in Kuthalampattu Village on September 16, 1997. The Petitioner was terminated on May 1,

2000 by means of an oral order by the second Respondent. Later, she filed a petition u/s 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the

Labour Officer, Cuddalore. However, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a Settlement as per Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes

Act in Ref. No. Na. Ka. No. 1067/2000 dated September 18, 2000.

The case of the Petitioner is that even after Section 12(3) Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 entered into between herself and

the 2nd Respondent, she was not provided with employment with continuity of service and also the backwages and therefore, she has filed the

present writ petition before this Court to implement the said settlement dated September 18, 2000.

A settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act is quite sacrosant and bind the parties, unless procured by fraud. The object of settlement is to

maintain an industrial peace.

A perusal of Section 12(3) Settlement dated September 18, 2000, entered into between the parties, clearly points out that the Petitioner was to

be reinstated in service with continuity of service and back wages and it was also agreed that from May 1, 2000, the Petitioner was to be paid a

salary of Rs. 150/- as per G.O. Ms. No. 66, Rural Development Department, dated February 3, 1990, etc.

Even after Section 12(3) Settlement dated September 18, 2000, entered into between the parties, since the Petitioner was not reinstated into

service, she was constrained to address a letter dated March 13, 2002 to the first Respondent/ Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat,

Kuthalampattu, praying for reinstatement and the payment of arrears of salary from May 1, 2000 onwards.

In Law, Section 12(3) Settlement, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, is binding between the parties, inter se and the same cannot be nullified at

later point of time by any party either in a self serving manner or in an unilateral fashion, in the considered opinion of this Court. As on date the said

settlement u/s 12(3) of the Act is a valid one and the same is in force and therefore the same has to be implemented by the second Respondent in

true letter and spirit without any deviation whatsoever. Also, it transpires that as per Section 12(3) Settlement dated September 18, 2000, on

behalf of the second Respondent, the President has signed.

Therefore, it is candidly clear that the Petitioner has to be reinstated with continuity of service as per the Settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, dated September 18, 2000 and she has to be paid the arrears of salary and other benefits. Considering the plight of the Petitioner

and since the prayer is only to implement the Section 12(3) Settlement, by means of issuance of writ of mandamus, this Court, on the basis of

Equity, Fair Play, good Conscience allows this writ petition by directing the second Respondent to scrupulously implement the Settlement as per

Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated September 18, 2000, (without precipitating and procastinating the matter any further) within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail. In the result, the writ

petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.