The original Settlement under Section 12(3) remains binding, and the subsequent Settlement under Section 18(1) does not replace the agreement regarding Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA).

JUDGMENT :

M.S.RAMESH, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 26.07.2013 in WP.No.18057 of 2008.

For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as 'workmen', the first respondent as 'Labour Court' and the second respondent as 'the Mill'.

2. All the seven appellants herein are members of INTUC Trade Union and workmen of the Mill. From 14.09.1994 onwards, the workmen of the Mill resorted to strike and during the continuation of strike, there were several rounds of conciliation talks between the parties and ultimately, on 02.01.1995, the Trade Union and the Mill entered into a Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for the period between 01.01.1995 to 13.12.1999. Among several clauses in the agreement, the Mill had agreed that the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) for more than 5000 points would be calculated @ 30 paise per point and merge with the basic pay, apart from the House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Medical Allowance (MA). It was also agreed therein that after the expiry of Section 12(3) Settlement, the same would continue to be binding on both the parties, until another Settlement is entered into.

2.1 During the subsistence of Settlement, the Mill stopped functioning from 18.10.1998 onwards and several rounds of conciliation talks were held between the Trade Unions and the Mill before the Statutory Conciliation Officers. Ultimately, on 12.06.2000, the Conciliation Officer, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (DCL), Salem, had given an advice, which was accepted by all the Trade Unions, including INTUC, whereby, the DCL had called upon the parties to reopen the Mill and resume work by paying the workmen the wages which they received prior to September 1998 for the first 2 years, comprising of the basic wages, VDA, MA, including HRA and from the third year, VDA to be paid in accordance with the variable index points.

2.2 In accordance with the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000, the Mill had commenced its work with effect from 12.06.2000 and the workers were paid their wages. In other words, the workers were paid their last drawn monthly wages, received by them prior to September 1998, on consolidated basis, comprising of their basic salary, VDA, MA and HRA for the first two years and from the third year onwards, they had received VDA according to the variable index points.

2.3 However, after about 5 years, the appellants herein, together with few other workmen belonging to INTUC, filed a Computation Petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act in C.P.No.412 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Salem, for computation of their claim for VDA from 16.08.2000 to 28.02.2005. After filing of this Computation Petition, the Trade Unions and the Mill had entered into a Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act, whereby, it was recorded that the workmen had resumed duties as per the advice of the DCL, by giving them all their monetary claims under the earlier Section 12(3) Settlement dated 02.01.1995 and by considering the terms of the advice as a new agreement.

2.4 However, the applicants, who had filed a Computation Petition before the Labour Court for claiming VDA, continued to pursue the petition and ultimately, by an order dated 28.02.2008, the Labour Court had computed the claim of VDA at Rs.44,021.12, for each of the workmen and thereby, allowed C.P.No.412 of 2005.

2.5 When the Mill had challenged the aforesaid order of the Labour Court dated 28.02.2008 before this Court in W.P.No.18057 of 2008, a learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition through an order dated 26.07.2013 and thereby set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 28.02.2008. This order of the learned Single Judge is assailed in this Intra Court Appeal.

3. From the submissions made on the either side, it is seen that the dispute revolves around the interpretation to the terms of agreement ente