Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
HT Media Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
GNCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 827 of 2020 & CM Appl. 2587 of 2020
Decided On : 23-12-2021
Settlement agreements in labor disputes are binding and cannot be re-agitated without substantial justification.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Settlement Agreement - Writ Petition - Quashing of reference dated 27th May 2019 - Earlier settlement dated 20 July 2016 between Workman and Management resolved dispute over arrears of wages; Management had paid Rs.1,75,000/- as full and final settlement - The Workman cannot re-agitate the same issues post-settlement. (Paras 3, 4, 8)
(B) Law of Contracts - The sanctity of settled disputes must be upheld in subsequent claims unless valid basis for re-litigation exists. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The Workman filed a claim for arrears of wages after previously settling with Management, which included a full settlement amount; Management claims this issue cannot be raised again. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The filing of a fresh claim and the subsequent reference by the Deputy Labour Commissioner contradict settled terms and is thus quashed. (Paras 6, 8)
Issues: Whether the Workman can pursue claims already settled and recognized by the Court without valid grounds for reopening. (Paras 7, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized upholding the finality of settlements in labor disputes to prevent re-litigation of resolved claims, reinforcing the legal principle that settled matters cannot be challenged without substantial justification. (Paras 4, 7)
Result: Reference order dated 27th May, 2019 is quashed and petition disposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of prior settlement agreement (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. management's argument against re-agitation (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court’s recognition of settlement validity (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. impugned reference order quashed (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of petition (Para 9) |
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(39)/15/WJA/DLC/NDD/2015/4077 filed by the Respondent No.2/Shiv Mohan Rai/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:
"Mr. Shiv Mohan Rai,
E-71, Lane No. 3,
East Vinod Nagar
Delhi-91"
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 20 July 2016 entered 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 13th July, 2016 in WP(C) 11105/2015 titled HT Media Limited v. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr., the following order was passed:
"CM No.24340/2016
Even though, a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC has been filed by petitioner and the respondent no.2, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the settlement entered by the petitioner with the respondent no.2, he wishes to withdraw the Writ Petition.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Consequently, all the pending applications have become infructuous and dismissed as infructuous.
The date already fixed, i.e, 4th August, 2016 stands cancelled."
4. As the Terms of Settlement, the Workman was to be Rs.1,75,000/- 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, the notice was issued on 22nd 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, the filing of the claim petition by the Workman once again and issuance of summons against the Management, as also the framing of the reference by the ld. Deputy Labour Commissioner would be contrary to the settlements entered between the parties and recognised by this Court which has already attained finality.
8. Accordingly, the impugned reference order dated 27th May, 2019 is quashed.
9. No further orders are called for. The petition is disposed of. The pending application is disposed of.
