JUDGMENT :

1. This bunch comprises of writ petitions filed by the petitioner-Ambuja Cements Ltd. Company (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), challenging the proceedings undertaken by the employees before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

2. Though all the cases involve identical facts, however, for the sake of brevity and clarity the facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12761/2020 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Gautam Dewasi & Anr. are taken into consideration.

3. The respondent Gautam Dewasi was deployed as a casual labourer by a contractor, namely M/s Jain Carrying Corporation to work at the factory of the petitioner – Company.

4. The Company decided to bring end to the services of the Contractor, namely, Jain Carrying Corporation as it was no more in requirement of the employees, who were engaged through the Contractor. A tripartite settlement came to be executed on 09.08.2016 between petitioner-Company, Contractor and the respondent-employee. Accordingly, the respondent-employee was paid a total sum of Rs.402685/-being ex-gratia, Gratuity amount along with other legal dues (Rs.253728; Rs.123957/-; Rs.25000/-) and such fact of which was duly recorded in the tripartite settlement. The said amount has been agreed to be given/accepted towards full and final settlement and the respondent-employee had agreed to make no claim or raise dispute of any nature whatsoever against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd.

5. Para No.6(H) of the agreement in question needs special mention, for which it is hereby reproduced as under:-

“(H) Mr. Gautam hereby categorically agrees and accepts that on receiving the aforesaid amount as mentioned in clause number G of this terms of settlement he shall have absolutely no claim or demand or dispute of any nature whatsoever left against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. As well as contractor M/s Jain Carrying Corporation and as such, all his claims, demands or dispute of any nature whatsoever against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. including those pertaining to reinstatement or employment or absorption etc. etc. shall stand fully and finally settled, and he shall not be competent to raise any dispute, much less any industrial dispute, against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd.”

6. Having accepted the amount of settlement, the respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute and after failure of conciliation proceedings a claim petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, which was registered as case No.45/2018.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings so lodged by the respondent-employee, the petitioner – Company moved an application under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) and prayed that the respondents be directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,49,627/-being amount of Rs.4,60,145/-paid to the employee along with interest @ 18% from August, 2016 to August, 2019 in order to continue the proceedings.

8. The respondent-employee filed a reply to the said application and while accepting the factum of payment so made by the petitioner – Company (through the Contractor), stated that the settlement in question was not as per Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that employee’s rights cannot be curtailed. A plea was taken that since the impugned amount was not in accordance with law, no direction can be issued to return the amount received by the respondent-employee.

9. The application under section 29 of the Act of 1947, filed by the petitioner – Company came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.2020. While rejecting petitioner’s application, the learned Tribunal observed that since the respondent-workman has challenged the very genuineness and enforcibility of the settlement in question having been executed under duress, the application filed by the petitioner-Company cannot be accepted and neither any direction to return the amount received by the employee can be issued, nor can any c