Industrial settlements are binding package deals promoting peace; fraud requires specific proof and timely protest; employee status continues post suspension notice assuring protection until valid voluntary retirement; acceptance of phased payments bars later challenges absent statutory breach.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners call in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No.181 of 2008. By the said order, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint preferred by the petitioners under the MRTU and PULP Act and consequently rejected their claim for wages for the period from June 1999 to November 1999.

2. According to the petitioners, respondent No.1 company was engaged in the business of processing wool at its factory situated at Thane. It is their case that the company discontinued its operations and proposed to dispose of its factory land admeasuring about 8.33 acres along with plant and machinery, the total value of which was stated to be approximately Rs.125 crores. At the relevant time, about 445 employees were in service, whose names are set out in Exhibit ‘A’, and who were stated to be permanent workmen of respondent No.1.

3. The petitioners instituted Complaint (ULP) No.181 of 2008 alleging commission of unfair labour practices under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In the complaint, they sought recovery of unpaid wages and other statutory dues from respondent No.1. They also alleged that the payments made towards statutory benefits were short and not in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioners that although they were earlier members of a recognised union, they lost confidence in the said union and tendered their resignations from its membership in the year 1999. Thereafter, according to them, they were not members of any recognised union nor were they represented by any common union. They contend that wages for the period from June 1999 to November 1999 were not paid to them.The petitioners further state that on 16 November 1999, respondent No.1 displayed a notice on the factory notice board informing the workmen that they need not report for duty until further instructions and assuring them that their services would remain protected. The notice also indicated that unpaid wages would be disbursed as and when the company’s financial position permitted. It is further stated that respondent No.1 approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction by filing Case No.61 of 1988 seeking to be declared a sick industrial company. The BIFR passed an order under Section 20(1) of the SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES ACT directing winding up of the company. Though the said order was subsequently set aside, and the matter remanded, respondent No.1 made a statement before the BIFR that it would not dispose of its assets. The petitioners allege that notwithstanding the subsistence of the winding up order, respondent No.1 entered into a settlement dated 31 March 2005 with respondent No.4 employees’ union. Under the terms of the settlement, each employee was paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000, with an assurance that the remaining dues would be cleared upon sale of the Thane unit land and machinery. The petitioners assert that they were