Important Point: If the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, they have to part with the benefit they have received towards retirement.

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 / Authority, whereby, the Conciliation Officer has not referred the demands put-forth by the petitioners to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenuously criticized the impugned order. His submissions can be summarized as follows:-

(a) Respondent No.3 is a Company having a manufacturing Unit at W-28, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad.

(b) There were 22 workers, who were permanent in the said plant.

(c) These 18 petitioners are amongst the said 22 workers.

(d) The petitioners have been working for more than 20 years.

(e) On 28.12.2013, respondent No.3/establishment/factory granted three days' holidays.

(f) By notice dated 30.12.2013, respondent No.3 factory declared a closure of the W-28 establishment.

(g) Respondent No.3 has another factory at A-8 MIDC, Waluj, which has now been closed down w.e.f. 1.1.2017 as per the statement of respondent No.3.

(h) The petitioners were the members of the Aurangabad Mazdoor Union (CITU).

(i) The Union took up the cause of the petitioners before the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Labour.

(j) A settlement dated 12.8.2014, was signed under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 62(4) of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, between the parties.

(k) The Assistant Commissioner of Labour was a witness to the cheques paid to the petitioners / workers.

(l) The conditions of the settlement were mentioned therein.

(m) The petitioners have been tricked by respondent No.3 and since the factory at A-8 was in operation and was undertaking production of activities which were also undertaken in W-28, the petitioners raised a demand notice for reemployment / reinstatement with all backwages from 30.12.2013 alleging violation of Section 25-H and 25-O.

(n) The petitioners are poverty stricken employees and are without an employment today.

(o) They deserve to be reinstated in service with full backwages.

(p) An Industrial Dispute ought to have been submitted to the Industrial Tribunal.

(q) The Impugned order is illegal, unsustainable and baseless.

6. The learned Advocate for respondent factory submits that the said factory at W-28 has been permanently closed down. Similarly, w.e.f. 1.1.2017, the factory at A-8 has also been closed down. There is no manufacturing activity and no job available to any worker, much less the petitioners. By signing the settlement, dated 12.8.2014, pursuant to the demands of the petitioner and the Union against the closure, 20 workers involved including the petitioners, were paid a total amount of Rs.1,01,32,065/-. (Rs. One Crore One Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Sixty Five only/-).

7. He further submits that after signing a settlement with regard to the closure and after having taken all the benefits from the settlement, the petitioners have utilized the money paid to them and thereafter have raised an industrial dispute on 9.10.2015, contending that the closure is illegal. The thrust of the petitioners' demand is on Sections 25-O and 25-H. Nevertheless, after signing the settlement, the petitioners are precluded from raising any industrial dispute.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

9. This Court had heard the learned Advocates for quite some time on 1.2.2017 and 6.2.2017.

10. The Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Man Singh Vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited and another [(2011) 14 SCC 662], had dealt with a case wherein the appellant had sought voluntary retirement with the respondent / factory. He accepted all the benefits of VRS and gave up all his rights of employment and non-employment. After accepting all the benefits as a package under the VRS, he had moved the Labour Court alleging compulsion, duress, and coercion. The man