R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant was an employee of the first respondent. He resigned from service on 31-1-1989. In regard to certain claims and demands of the workmen, there were series of negotiations resulting in an agreement relating to revision of wages and other issues on 5-5-1989 (Annexure-B ). Thereafter conciliation proceedings were initiated and after further discussions, a settlement was arrived at under conciliation proceedings as per memorandum of settlement under Sections 12 (3) and 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('act' for short), dated 7-7-1989 (Annexure-I ). Under the said conciliation settlement, the pay scales were revised with retrospective effect from 1-1-1987.

( 2 ) CLAUSE 6 read with Annexure-I to the settlement agreement dated 7-7-1989 contained the new wage structure effective from 1-1-1987. Clause 9 (corresponding to Clause 10 of the Agreement dated 5-5-1989) provided that all workmen who were on the rolls of the company as on 1-1-1987 and who continued to be on the rolls on the date of signing of the settlement, will be entitled to a lumpsum payment of Rs. 1,600/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for the period 1-1-1987 to 30-4-1988. Clause 10. 1 (corresponding to Clause 11. 1 of the Agreement dated 5-5-1989) provided that in addition to the lumpsum payment, workmen will be eligible to receive payments on account of differences in incremental rates and fixation in the revised scales with effect from 1-1-1987 to 30-4-1988. Clause 10. 3 (corresponding to Clause 11. 3 of the agreement dated 5-5-1989) provided that 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.

( 3 ) THE appellant who resigned on 31-1-1989, sought extension of the benefits under the said settlement, by requesting for payment of arrears for the period 1-1-1987 to 31-1-1989. The said request was rejected by the Management by letter dated 28-1-1992 (Annexure-D), on the ground that he was not entitled to such relief under the terms of the settlement dated 7-7-1989. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed W. P. No. 2528 of 1993 for the following reliefs. (a) For a declaration that Clause 10 of the settlement dated 5-5-1989 (corresponding to Clause 9 of the settlement dated 7-7-1989) was illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution; (b) For quashing the communication dated 28-1-1992 (Annexure-D wrongly described as Annexure-E in the prayer) rejecting the appellant's request for benefits under the said settlement, as illegal; (c) For a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of settlement dated 5-5-1989 to him and for a further direction to pay the interim relief of Rs. 4,080/- which had been deducted from his terminal benefits; and for consequential benefits.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge who heard the matter dismissed the petition by order dated 5-12-1996, R. Balaji Singh v HMT Limited, bangalore and Another. He held that the appellant cannot challenge the settlement or any provision thereof. He also held that under the terms of the settlement, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit, as the appellant had resigned from service and therefore did not fall under the category of persons who were superannuated or voluntarily retired from service. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not want to challenge the validity of any provision of the settlement that had been reached, even though one of the prayers in the writ petition was to that effect. He submitted that on a proper interpretation of the settlement, the appellant should be held to be entitled to the benefit under Clause 10. 3, that is for payment of arrears of wages for the period 1-1-1987 to date of his resignation. It is contended the appellant who resigned, would fall under the category of persons who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document