The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection under the saving clause is not applicable to a settlement, and the incentive rates were revised without considering the revised basic wage rates.

1. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions have challenged the Award, dated 23-03-2005, made in Claim Petition Nos.135 of 1992 and 155 of 1992 of the Labour Court Tirunelveli, dismissing their Claim Petitions.

2. The brief facts, which are common to both the Writ Petitions, are as follows:

The petitioners are workers in the Tuticorin Port Trust. In 1983, after negotiations, a settlement under section 12(3) was entered into between the management and the unions of which the petitioners are members. As per the terms of the settlement, the workers were entitled to incentives for handling cargo in addition to their regular load. The incentive was fixed based on the basic wage of the shore worker. Subsequently, another settlement was arrived at, on 11.4.1984, whereby the earlier settlement was revised, but the revised basic wage was decided not to be considered for fixing the incentives for cargo lifting. Another settlement was entered into, on 12.06.1989 and though the incentive rates were revised, the revised basic rates were agreed not to be considered for calculating incentives. Aggrieved over the same, the above said Claim Petitions were filed. The Claim Petitions were initially rejected as not maintainable and after the orders of this Court, the same were again taken on record and decided. After hearing all the parties, by order, dated 23.03.2005, the Claim Petitions were dismissed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that despite the fact that the incentive rates have been increased, the same was calculated on the basic wage rage fixed in the year 1983. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that once the wage rate is increased, the incentives have to be calculated based on the revised wage rate. The learned Senior Counsel also laid emphasis on the saving clause 23 of the settlements entered into in the year 1984 and 1989. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the benefits conferred under clause 12(3) settlement is more advantageous, which will have a overriding effect even on the national level settlement. The learned Senior Counsel also attributed the delay in the challenge to the Award on the union leaders contending that the petitioners were under the impression that their Claim Petitions were still pending. The learned Senior Counsel further assailed the Award of the Labour Court contending that the Award has been passed by just following the counter and therefore sought the setting aside of the Award.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Port Trust would contend that the Award of the Labour Court is sound and warrants no interference. The learned counsel further contended that the fact that basic wages was agreed not to be considered while refixing the incentive rates is evident from the agreements entered into in the year 1984 and 1989. The learned counsel further contended that as per clause 15 only incentive rate was agreed to be revised by 14 %. Having accepted all the benefits of the agreement, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that the incentives have to be calculated on the revised basic wage rate. The learned counsel further contended that a reference to the demand of the petitioners was made to the Chairman as per the terms of the settlement. The Chairman has already clarified that the incentive can be calculated only at base output and the same has also been confirmed by the Ministry of shipping and Transport, Government of India. The learned counsel also contended that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable on the ground of laches, as the Award of the Labour Court has been challenged after six years.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Port Trust makes reliance upon the following Judgments:-

(i). Herbertsons Limited, Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and others, reported in 1976 4 SCC 736;

(ii).Barauni Refi