V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that has been raised for consideration inter alia is whether the petitioner, an employee is entitled to challenge a clause in the conciliation settlement entered into between the employer and the unions on the ground that it is arbitrary and violates the guarantee of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are as follows: The petitioner herein was an employee under the respondents. He resigned his employment on 31-1-1989. Subsequent thereto on 7-7-1989 the employer entered into a conciliation settlement after negotiation between various unions representing the employees and Annexure-B is the copy thereof produced by the petitioner (the complete text thereof is produced by the Management as Annexure-I ). It contained the following clauses:"10. Lumpsum payment: for the period of 1-1-1987 to 30-4-1988, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,600/- @ Rs. 100/- per month will be paid to those workmen who were on the rolls of the company as on 1-1-1987 and continue to be on the rolls on the date of signing of this settlement. xxx xxx xxx. 11. 3 Workmen who superannuated/voluntarily retired or died while in service between 1-1-1987 and the date of signing the settlement will be eligible for arrears of wages proportionately". (The italicized portion is the infringing terms impugned by the petitioner) the petitioner being an employee who resigned is not entitled to claim the above said benefits. The grievance of the petitioner is that persons who have resigned and who have retired stand on the same footing, that an artificial classification is made which bears no nexus to the object to be achieved. The further grievance of the petitioner is that as far as the officers are concerned Annexure-E is the settlement. In para 1. 1. of the said settlement it is made clear the benefits thereof is conferred on all the employees in employment us on the day noted, irrespective of the fact that he has resigned or not subsequently. This according to the petitioner is another leg of discrimination. He therefore contends that he submitted a representation to remove the discrimination and to extend the benefit to him as well under Annexure-B settlement ignoring the factum of resignation. By communication dated 28-1-1992 Annexure-D the request has been rejected. The petitioner has hence moved this court on 20-1-1993, challenging the above said infringing clauses in the agreement.

( 3 ) THE Management has entered appearance and has filed detailed objections. They deny the claim, inter alia contending that, it is not open to a single worker to maintain the writ petition challenging the settlement in view of Section 18 (3) (d) of the I. D. Act, that the class of employees who resigned form a different class by themselves and it cannot be contended that they are to be treated as similarly placed who retired, that those who benefited as per Annexure-E is a separate class from workers covered by Annexure-B and that there is no violation of article 14 of the Constitution, that the settlement was brought about by collective bargaining and conciliation and after protracted negotiation, that the same is in the realm of contract and that in any event without the junction of the other unions who are parties to the settlement and without further averment regarding their misconduct the writ petition is not maintainable.

( 4 ) MR. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner formulated the following four points: (I) That a person who resigns and a person who voluntarily retires belongs to the same class and cannot be differently treated; (ii) That there is no reasonableness in excluding person who has resigned from the purview of the settlement annexure-B, and also in treating Officers benefited by Annexure-E settlement differently from the workers; (iii) That equality guaranteed in Article 14 of the constitution of India is infringed; (iv) That in any event the ground on which person who r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document