The main legal point established in the judgment is that workmen cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court, and a balancing and pragmatic approach is necessary to ensure no party is prejudiced during the adjudication of the proceedings.

ORDER :

The Interlocutory orders passed in the industrial dispute are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The petitioner is NTTF Industries Private Limited. Nearly about fifty workmen were working in the petitioner’s establishment at Katpadi, Vellore. The workmen were represented by the 5th respondent entity NTTFIL Employees Union, which is a registered Union under the Trade Unions Act.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Management entered into a 18(1) Settlement with the Labour’s Union on 22.06.2011. Terms and conditions were agreed between the parties in the 18(1) Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. The office bearers of the Trade Unions signed the settlement and that is also not disputed between the parties. However, few workmen raised a ground that the office bearers of the Union were not authorized by all the members. However, such a ground is a matter of dispute to be adjudicated and not in question as far as the Interlocutory Applications filed by the Management is concerned.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Management made a submission that honoring the 18(1) Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Management transferred the monetary benefits to all the eligible workmen with reference to the terms and conditions of the said 18(1) Settlement dated 22.06.2011. The respective workmen also acknowledged the monetary benefits which were deposited in their respective accounts. No workmen has returned the monetary benefits transferred by the Management or raised a protest immediately after transfer of the money by the Management. Thus, the workmen received the monetary benefits pursuant to the Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. In the above backdrop, few workmen raised industrial disputes before the Labour Court, questioning the validity of the settlement entered under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the settlement was signed on 22.06.2011 and the monetary benefits were transferred to the respective workmen and after a lapse of three years, few workmen raised industrial disputes before the Labour Court in the year 2014. Within a short span of period, the Management filed Interlocutory Applications before the Labour Court stating that the workmen, who raised industrial disputes had already received the monetary benefits, which was transferred by the Management in their respective Bank accounts and therefore, they have to return the monetary benefits to the Management and adjudicate the issues before the Labour Court or accept the monetary benefits and confirm the settlement signed under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. The Labour Court adjudicated the preliminary issue raised by the Management regarding the entertainability of the industrial dispute and formed an opinion that the entitlement or dis-entitlement of monetary benefits already received by the workmen in pursuance of 18(1) settlement can be decided only after the trial and after appreciating the evidence available. The Labour Court further held that there is no rule that mandates to deposit the amount received by the workmen under the settlement before trial. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner Management was dismissed. Thus, the Management filed the present writ petitions.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla and Others vs. Vikram Cement and Others reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with a case on similar facts and circumstances and made a categorical finding in Paragraph Nos.98, 99, 100 and 101, which reads as under:

98. From the above cases, it clearly transpires that powers under Articles 226 and 227 are discretionary and equitable and are required to be exercised in the larger interest of justice. While granting relief i