The voluntary retirement scheme settlement covered only existing employees, and the legal principles established in previous cases were emphasized to support the court's decision.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of the division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants questioning the legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The appellants were employees of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer' ). A voluntary retirement scheme was floated by the employer on 26. 5. 1995. Undisputedly, appellants and 125 others opted to be covered by the scheme. They were paid the amounts required to be paid under the scheme. Subsequently, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workmen through the registered union on 13. 10. 1995. The settlement was in terms of Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'act' ). 143 persons including the present appellants raised a dispute on two issues; one relating to the age of retirement and the other relating to monetary benefits. According to them, the settlement arrived at on 13. 10. 1995 also covered their cases and they were entitled to higher amounts. The claim was made by an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') held that the claimants were entitled to the benefits flowing from the settlement and that the claimants were entitled to be continued in service by treating age of retirement to be 58 years. The employer filed a writ petition before the High court. Learned Single Judge held that the view of the Tribunal is unsustainable. It was held that Section 33-C (2) of the Act does not apply to the facts of the case and no benefit was available under the settlement. The essential conclusions of the learned Single Judge are as follows:

"what is the position herein? A settlement was arrived at. At best, the Labour Court could interpret the said settlement and if there was anything more due, the benefit could be given to the workmen but the Labour Court could not interpret or go into the controversy of fraud, if any, because on basis of fraud in execution the decree cannot be modified. Similarly, when there was a basic controversy about the age of retirement, it was not pertaining to a pre-existing right. The award of the Labour Court in this regard, therefore, cannot be sustained. "

( 3 ) EIGHTEEN persons i. e. the present appellants filed Letters patent Appeal which was dismissed as noted above.

( 4 ) IN support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that stress in the settlement was on "permanent workmen on the rolls of specified divisions on 30. 6. 1995". According to the appellants all of them continued to be on rolls beyond 30. 6. 1995 and, therefore, they are entitled to be benefits.

( 5 ) IN response, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-employer submitted that at the point of time the settlement was arrived at, the appellants were not existing workmen. In addition, the benefits are relatable to future production targets and the instalments of financial benefits are given only on attainment of specified production target. The stand of the appellants of continuance beyond 30. 6. 1995 is also disputed on the ground that learned Single Judge has referred to various documents to conclude that none of the appellants were in fact on the rolls of the employer as on 30. 6. 1995. The illustrative case of one Jeet Singh as noted by the High Court was referred to. It was also submitted that in order to get over the factual position the basic case before the Tribunal was alleged fraud purported to have been practiced by the employer. The High Court has categorically found that there was no element of fraud. Reference is made to para 7 of the application filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the plea relating to a