Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
HT Media Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
GNCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 926 of 2020 & CM Appl. 2937 of 2020
Decided On : 23-12-2021
Once a dispute is settled and payment made, parties cannot re-agitate the same issues, ensuring the finality of settlements.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10 - Writ petition challenging the reference order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner regarding claims of wages raised by a workman - Earlier settlement dated 17 June 2016 paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,50,000/- considered as full and final settlement of all claims - The reference dated 27th May 2019 is quashed as it ignores the earlier settlement, which is tenable and has attained finality. (Paras 4-8)
(B) Settlement of disputes - A valid settlement accepted by court bars re-agitation of the same issues by the parties involved - Courts must honor the finality of settled disputes, barring subsequent claims for the same issues. (Paras 4-7)
Facts of the case:
The workman, with prior agreements made on claims of arrears of wages, received a lump-sum ex-gratia payment towards his claims, which the management argues prevents him from re-opening the same matters.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the workman had been paid the agreed amounts, and the impugned reference order ignored the earlier binding agreement, thereby making it unsustainable.
Issues: The primary questions were the validity of the reference order by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in light of the previous settlement and whether the workman could raise claims post-settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that previously settled disputes with a clear binding agreement cannot be re-agitated, reinforcing that once disputes are settled and payments made, parties cannot initiate fresh claims on the same issues.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned reference order is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recognition of prior settlement between parties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. workman's non-participation in proceedings. (Para 5) |
| 3. analysis of payment and prior agreements. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. quashing of reference due to prior settlement. (Para 8) |
| 5. disposition of petition without further orders. (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(40)/16/WJA/DLC/NDD/2015/4080 filed by the claimant Sh. Rajesh Kumar against the management of HT Media (hereinafter "Management") in respect of claims of arrears of wages raised by the Respondent No.2/Rajesh Kumar/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") whose details are as under:
"Mr. Rajesh Kumar,
S-803, Saffron Towers,
Anjara Gen X Crossing Republic
Ghaziabad"
3. In the earlier round of litigation between the Management and the Workman regarding the same dispute, parties had settled their issues and a memorandum of settlement (hereinafter "settlement") dated 17 June 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 Courtvide order dated 13th July, 2016 in WP(C) 11139/2015 titled HT Media Limited v. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr., the following order was passed:
"CM No.24339/2016
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 per the Terms of Settlement, the Workman was to be paid an ex-gratia lump-sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- 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 24th February, 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.
