Aggrieved by the Recovery Certificate, dated 01-08-2017, issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, ('the Act', for short), the petitioner, M/s Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., has approached this Court.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company is engaged in the assembly of various kinds of electronic and computer components, inputs, hardware, UPS, surge protection products etc. It has eight manufacturing units located in Bengaluru. It employs about 475 workmen. A section of the workmen formed a trade union, known as M/s American power Conversion (India) Pvt. Ltd. Employees' Union, the respondent No.1 before this Court. According to the petitioner-Company, since the year 2007, wage revisions and other conditions of service of the workmen are being regulated through individual settlements. However, the respondent No. 1 submitted a charter of demands for increasing the wages, and for other benefits for the workmen. The charter of demands was filed for seeking increase of wages for the period 01-04-2015 to 01-04-2016. Further, according to the petitioner-Company, while 296 workmen have individually signed a settlement for increase in wages, about 179 workmen have refused to sign the individual settlements. These 179 workmen are represented by the respondent No. 1.

3. Since the petitioner-Company refused to accept the charter of demands raised by the respondent No. 1, the dispute was placed before the Conciliation Officer. After the conciliation proceedings failed, a reference of the industrial dispute was made to the Additional Industrial Tribunal. The reference was with regard to “whether the second party management of M/s Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Limited is justified in not acceding to the various demands of the workmen or not?” The respondent No.1 filed the claim statement; the petitioner-Company filed its objection. During the pendency of the reference, the respondent No.1 filed an application for interim relief, wherein it prayed that each workman should be paid Rs.8000/- per month, during the pendency of the proceeding. By order dated 23-08-2016, the learned Industrial Tribunal partly granted the interim relief in favour of the respondent No. 1. It directed that the workmen should be paid Rs.5000/- per month from 01-04-2015. Since the petitioner-Company was aggrieved by the said order, it filed a writ petition before this court, namely, W.P. No. 53001/2016. However, by order dated 15-11-2016, this court has dismissed the said writ petition. Consequently, the petitioner-Company has filed a writ appeal, namely Writ Appeal No. 5101/2016, before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The same is pending before this Court.

4. Meanwhile, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 33-C (1) of the Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the petitioner-Company. On 01.08.2017, the learned Labour Commissioner has issued the Recovery Certificate. The learned Labour Commissioner has directed the Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru to recover an amount of Rs.2,44,75,000/- from the petitioner-Company. Hence, this petition before this Court.

5. Mr. S. N. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Company, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, Section 2 (b) of the Act defines the word "Award", as meaning “an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by a Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or a National Industrial Tribunal”. Moreover, Section 33-C of the Act, speaks of “recovery of money due from an employer”. According to sub-section (1) where any money is due to an workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V A, or Chapter V B, the workman himself or other person authorised by him, without prejudice to