The existence of a binding settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act negates claims of workmen, especially when raised after an excessive delay of 19 years.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner Company has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:

“12(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned awards dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (T) Nos.50 to 52 of 2016 (Annexure: A) and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application Nos. 105 to 107 of 2017 (Annexure: F) and consequently may also be pleased to set aside the impugned recovery notices issued by respondent No.5 – Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad (Annexure: H).

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay operation, execution and implementation of the impugned awards dated 18.07.2017 passed in Reference (T) Nos. 50 to 52 of 2016 (Annexure: A) by the Labour Court.”

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent No. 5-Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad from taking any coercive action again the petitioner and its property as per the impugned recovery notices issued by respondent No.5-Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad (Annexure: H)

(D) Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (B) and (C) above may kindly be granted.

(E) Any other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper may be granted by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”

2. This Court on 28.11.2018, while issuing notice granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 12(B) and (C).

3. Request in this case is made on behalf of Learned Advocate for respondent-Workmen to hear and decide civil application seeking wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (‘the Act’ for short), however since the issue in the main petition lies in a narrow compass, the civil application along with main petition is taken up together for final hearing with the consent of learned advocates for both the parties.

4. Necessary facts as stated in the petition are as under:

4.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. Earlier the Company was registered as Arat Electro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently the name was changed to Gurukrupa Procons Pvt. Ltd. The change in name was effected in the records of Registrar of Companies from the year 2014-2015. It is case of the petitioner that on account of closure of the Company w.e.f. 1.10.1997, the services of all workmen including respondents (respondent Nos.1 to 3) stood terminated as per terms of settlement u/s 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act (“the Act” for short). The reason for closure and section 2(p) settlement was on account of change in the policy of Government wherein raw material of Zinc was declared as hazardous chemical. Relatable thereto, there was great recession in the market and on that account, the Company was compelled to close its manufacturing activity in the year 1996-1997. On account of closure, the petitioner company Arat Electro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile name) entered into a settlement u/s 2(p) of the Act with Gujarat Audhyogik Kamdar Mahamandal, wherein all 92 individual workers of the Company including respondent Nos.1 to 3 had agreed to accept ex-gratia payment as per the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 24.01.2000. Accordingly, the workmen (respondent Nos.1 to 3) along with other workmen were paid closure compensation, leave encashment, gratuity etc. by account payee cheques.

4.2. Upon closure, the factory license of Arat Electro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd got cancelled. Consequently, the petitioner, made an application for cancellation of provident fund registration, ESIC registration and Central Excise Cancellation Registration. After closure of the Company and after taking ex-gratia payment in terms of settlement dated 24.01.2000, the workmen (respondent Nos.1 to 3) raised dispute on 17.12.2015 for their termination, registered as R