JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present judgment shall dispose of 2 appeals, bearing LPA-1245 & 1297-2018which have been preferred against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions bearing CWP- 2838-2013 titled Bupendera Cement Worker's Union, Surajpur v. State of Haryana & others and CWP-11762-2013 titled Mallah Quarry Worker's Union, Mallah v. Union of India & others.

2. While giving reasons for the first case and disposing of the second case in the same terms, the learned Single Judge found that the matter had already been decided on 20.08.2022 by a Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the claim for issuance of recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.40,67,24,833.37 upto 10.01.2012 and with further interest as per the subsequent report of the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-10) was uncalled for. It was noticed that no appeal was filed against the said order and a complaint was filed regarding the non-implementation of settlement but had been rejected on 05.05.2006 (Annexure R-3/1) giving the petitioners the right of remedy under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). The said claim was also further rejected on 28.09.2012 (Annexure P-16) which was a reasoned order passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary to the Government of Haryana, which was the main subject matter of challenge. The objection of the respondent-Management that the trade union registration had been cancelled on 22.06.2016 and therefore, the writ petition which had been filed earlier in 2013 was not maintainable, was rejected. The argument raised that a 15% discount had been done on half yearly basis chart and was not as per the settlement of the scheme of 11.04.1997 but it was part of the settlement of 21.06.1997, was noticed to be an issue which had been raised after considerable delay as the cause of action had accrued in the year 1997 and the dispute had again been raised in the year 2006. It was also noticed that the petitioners were misleading the Court regarding the issue of discounting on half yearly basis which was part and parcel of the settlement arrived at in the year 1997 and resultantly, it was held that the Labour Court could not interfere once there was a judicial pronouncement already which is binding on both the parties.

3. Counsel for the appellant-Union in both the cases, Mr.Grover has primarily argued that the order passed by the State Government on 28.09.2012 had given them liberty to file a claim before the Labour Court under Section 33 -C(2) of the Act which right has been rejected by the learned Single Judge and limited his argument to that extent that the right could not be curtailed and therefore, prayed for liberty to be given to pursue the said benefit.

4. Senior Counsel for the respondent-Management, on the other hand, submitted that there were two separate disputes though one of the dispute was of Mallah Quarry Workers wherein the Appropriate Government would be the Central Government and a separate decision had been taken and different litigation initiated. For the plant in question, the Appropriate Government was the State Government and the writ petition had been initiated by the Bhupendera Cement Workers Union and decided by the Division Bench on merits on 20.08.2002. The matter had been wrongly clubbed together and decided. It is however contended that the claim having been finalized way-back in the year 1997, only by filing repeated representations, the same could not be revived at the instance of a certain set of workers. The plant had been closed long back and even