A prior legally binding settlement between parties precludes subsequent claims on the same issues, as recognized by the court.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned reference dated 27th May 2019 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi District in F. No. 24(38)/11/WJA/DLC/NDD/2015/4073 filed by the Respondent No.2/Laxman Raut/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") against the management of HT Media (hereinafter "Management") in respect of claims of arrears of wages raised by the Workman whose details are as under:

"Laxman Raut,

B-23, Flat No.304,

Vishwakarma Colony, M.B.Road,

New Delhi-110044"

3. In the earlier round of litigation between the Management and the Workman regarding the same dispute, the parties had settled their issues and a memorandum of settlement (hereinafter "settlement") dated 31st May 2016 was entered into between the Management and the Workman in respect of Workman's claim for arrears in salary. In terms of the said settlement, which was recorded before the Court vide order dated 3rd June, 2016 in WP(C) 11117/2015 & WP(C) 11123/2015 titled HT Media Limited v. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr.,the following order was passed:

"C.Ms. 23093/2016 & 23091/2016

These joint applications have been filed by petitioner and second respondent with a prayer to dispose of the main writ petition in terms of Memorandum of Settlement of 31st May, 2016.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the contesting second respondents are present in the court and they have been identified to be so on the basis of the identity proof produced by them.

The second respondents, who appear in person, submit that the Memorandum of Settlement, which is Annexure-A Colly, to the instant applications, has been acted upon and so, the impugned Notice/Summon of 16th November, 2015 summoning petitioner ought to be set aside.

The applications are duly accompanied by the aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement, affidavits of the parties and the settlement, which has been arrived at between the parties appears to be fair and since this settlement has been acted upon, therefore, these applications are allowed and the impugned Notice/Summons is hereby quashed in light of Memorandum of Settlement of 31st May, 2016.

W.P.(C) 11117/2015 & C.M.28793/2015

W.P.(C) 11123/2015 & C.M.28807/2015

In view of orders passed above in C.Ms. 23093/2016 & 23091/2016, these petitions and the pending applications are disposed of. The date of 4th August, 2016 fixed in these petitions stand cancelled."

4. As per the Terms of Settlement, the Workman was to be paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards expenses and compensation as full and final settlement of all the disputes/claims/demands/dues of any kind whatsoever against the Management. It is not disputed that the said amount was duly paid by the Management. The case of the Management is that the said amount having been paid, the same very issues could not be re-agitated by the Workman and hence the impugned reference which ignores the earlier settlement entered into between the parties is not tenable.

5. In this matter, notice was issued on 14th January, 2020. Counter affidavits have been filed by the Workman. However, thereafter they have stopped appearing in the matter.

6. Perusal of the earlier orders and the settlement as also the cheque payment and the receipts which are placed on record by the Management shows that the workman has been paid the agreed amounts and in fact much higher amount, has been paid by the management as per mutual understanding in lieu of the settlement of claims/demands/disputes etc. against the Management.

7. In view of the aforesaid