F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.:The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.12.2004 made in W.P.No.35562 of 2003, in and by which, the learned Judge declined to interfere with the settlement dated 18.5.1995 reached under Sec.12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act between Management and Workmen of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (in short, ‘N.L.C.Ltd.‘).

2. The terms of the said settlement dated 18.5.1995 are as under:

“I. It is agreed by the Management that the workers engaged by the INDCOSERVE in various production units as on 18.5.1995 in N.L.C. shall be absorbed in a phased manner over a period of 5 years. This absorption will, however, depend upon requirements, qualifications, length and nature of experience of the persons so engaged and subject to a test and selection by competent executives.

II. It is agreed by the parties that it will be left to the management as to how many workers are to be absorbed from one particular unit at the time and the phases in which the process is to be done periodicity when the the question of absorption will be reviewed and decided.

III. It is further agreed that based on the experience of working of this sys

tem during the aforesaid 5 years, the issue relating to remaining workers engaged by INDCOSERVE in non-production units will be taken up for discussion.”

3. Challenging the said settlement, the appellant filed the present writ petition and claimed that respondents 1 to 4 should be directed to reserve 50% of the semi-skilled/un-skilled and skilled jobs to the members of the appellant association in the N.L.C.Ltd. The grounds of challenge made by the appellant both before the learned Judge as well as before us, inter alia on other grounds, was on the ground that the members of the appellant association being trained apprentices under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1971, were entitled for preference as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Labour, Union of India as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 20.9.1995 P.Arul and others v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by its secretary, Madras and others, 1996 W.L.R. 215. It was further contended that the lands belonging to the families of about 600 members of the appellant association for the establishment N.L.C.Ltd., for whom no job was given and therfore, on this ground also, they are entitled for the relief claimed.

4. The claim was resisted by the management of N.L.C.Ltd., by contending that the appellant has no legally enforceable right, that the apprentices are not even ‘workmen’ under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, they have no locus standi to question the 12(3) settlement. It was further contended that the division bench judgment on which reliance was placed has been subsequently overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1995, dated 3.10.1996. According to the management of N.L.C.Ltd., since the settlement is a bipartite settlement reached between the work-men and the management of N.L.C.Ltd., in the presence of a Conciliation Officer, the binding effect of the said settlement cannot be easily upset by strangers like the appellants.

5. The learned single Judge taking note of the decisions relating to the rights of the apprentices, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the judgment in C.A.Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996, dated 3.10.1996, held that the appellant has no right to challenge the impugned settlement and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

6. After going through the order of the learned single Judge as well as the various decisions referred to therein, we are entirely in agreement with the conclusions of the learned single Judge. In the first place, the impugned settlement was dated 18.5.1995, while the writ petition came to be filed only in December, 2003, nearly after 8 long years. Such a long time gap itself would frustrate the claim of the appellant. In the submissions made on behalf of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document