The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a settlement between parties has attained finality, the parties have no right to dispute the terms of the settlement.

JUDGMENT

P.B. Bajanthri, J. (Oral) - In the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure P/16). Further sought for a direction for issuance of recovery certificate in respect of sum of Rs.40,67,24,833.37 up to 10.01.2012 and with further interest @ 12% pursuant to the recommendation by the Deputy Labour Commissioner's report dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P/10).

2. Respondent - company is into the business of cement, namely, Bhupendera Cement Works at Surajpur with mining at Mallah, namely, Mallah Quarry. Due to administrative difficulties, respondent Cement Company could not continue the manufacturing of cement at Bhupendera Cement Works, Surajpur, therefore, there was a Early Separation Scheme between the management and the workers' union on 11.04.1997 and it was not acceptable to the workers' union in respect of some of the issues. Consequently, terms of settlement was drawn on 20/21.06.1997. Accordingly, terms of settlement have been executed in the month of June, 1997. Petitioner - union and two others filed a writ petition i.e. CWP No. 19327 of 1998 before this Court seeking a mandamus to the respondents to secure the payment of the rightful dues of the workmen and fully implement the settlement dated 20/21.06.1997. Writ petition was decided on 20.08.2002. Judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"Judgment

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)

Shri Beni Prasad, President of Joint Committee of B.C.W. Surajpur and Mallah Quarry Workers along with two others has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 5 to 7 i.e. The Associated Cement Companies Limited and others to implement settlements dated 21.6.1997 (Annexure P-4) signed and entered into for the benefit of hundreds' of workers said to have been rendered unemployed due to closure of Associated Cement Co. Ltd.

There is no need to give detailed facts, as enumerated in the writ petition, as all that has been canvassed before this Court is that even though the litigating parties i.e. petitioners' union and respondents 5 to 7 had entered into a binding settlement under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same is not being implemented. Settlement arrived at between the parties is Annexure P-4 dated 21.6.1997.

Clause of settlement, which, as stated, has not been complied with or implemented by respondents 5 to 7, reads thus:

"The 'Early Separation Scheme' announced by the Management on 11th April, 1997; is accepted by the Union in its totally except that the monthly pension will be paid in lump sum by 15% discounting on half yearly basis as per the statement enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure "2".

Mr. Mittal, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners vehemently contends that the only interpretation of clause, reproduced above, am be that the Early Separation Scheme was totally accepted except that there cannot be 15% discounting on half yearly basis. In other words, the workmen of the petitioners' Union have to be paid in lump sum spread over two times in a year without any discounting.

This contention and which is, as mentioned above, the only contention, in the context of this case, has necessarily to be repelled. It is conceded position that prior to the Settlement (Annexure P-4), an Early Separation Scheme came into being, which is annexed as Annexure - 1 to the settlement, on 11.4.1997. Clause dealing with the pension reads thus:-

Monthly Pension:

(b) The employees willing to retire under the Scheme, who have completed 50 years of age as on the date of separation will be entitled to get a monthly pension equivalent to Basic Pay, Personal Pay, wherever applicable and Dearness Allowance last drawn by them, till their age of attaining superannuation i.e. age of 60 years.

(b) Employees not attaining the age of 50 years shall ge