A party that voluntarily enters into a settlement agreement is bound by its terms, regardless of subsequent litigation complications.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Heard Sri Shyam S.Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour on behalf of the 1^st respondent, Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel on behalf of the 4th respondent and Sri Ch. Omernathan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. This Writ Petition challenges the validity and propriety of the order dated 22-09-2023 in I.A.No.13 of 2021 in M.P.No.5 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (2^nd respondent). By the said order, petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.49,00,000/- to the credit of M.P.No.5 of 2019 within a period of four months from the date of the said order.

3. M.P.No.5 of 2019 was filed by the 3^rd respondent, DBR Mills Employees’ Mazdoor Union, in Form K-3 under Section 33C(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), with a prayer to compute the amount allegedly due to the workers and direct petitioner to pay the same to the 3^rd respondent with accrued interest. Petitioner contends that an agreement dated 07-03-2017 was entered into under Section 12(3) of the Act before the Conciliation Officer/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, wherein they agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in two instalments— Rs.2,00,000/- as first instalment and Rs.5,00,000/- as second instalment—as full and final settlement of all arrears, back wages, compensation, and other dues. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent filed I.A.No.13 of 2021 under Section 11 of the Act seeking a direction to petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.49,00,000/- in compliance with the Memorandum of Settlement dated 07-03-2017. Petitioner filed a counter to the said Application, disputing the claim made by the 3^rd respondent. Petitioner states that agreement dated 07-03-2017 was followed by a memorandum of compromise and a compromise decree in O.S.No.69 of 2003 (earlier O.S.No.1201 of 1995) on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Under the compromise, the 4^th respondent was to obtain title over Acs.16.00 of land, which was to be developed by petitioner as per a development agreement. Petitioner contends that it had the right to settle the workers' claims on behalf of the 4^th respondent pursuant to the compromise. However, the 4^th respondent, who was a tenant in DBR Mills property, opposed the compromise and initiated litigation by filing C.C.C.A.No.329 of 2003 before the High Court and later before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This led to two rounds of litigation and eventual dismissal of SLP.No.5163-5164 of 2022 vide order dated 18-04-2022, resulting in the compromise decree being set aside and the 4^th respondent being treated as a tenant at sufferance.

It is the case of petitioner that all parties, including workmen, were fully aware at the time of entering into the agreement dated 07-03-2017 that petitioner was not employer of the said workmen and that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them. The said settlement itself narrated the nature of relationship, specifically referencing the development agreement dated 15-03-1999, based on which development rights were granted by the 4th respondent to petitioner. Subsequently, the 4th respondent repudiated the compromise.

It is also stated, the 3^rd respondent filed O.S.No.293 of 2016 against petitioner for cancellation of registered documents executed by the original owners of the property in favour of petitioner. Despite attempts by petitioner to give effect to the compromise decree, including legal challenges, Appeal was dismissed and the subsequent Special Leave Petition also met with dismissal, thereby frustrating the compromise.

It is the contention of petitioner that the 2^nd respondent - Tribunal was fully aware of the developments, including frustration of the compromise due to the conduct of the 4th respondent and the pendency of litigation by the workers of the 4^th respondent regarding wages which had originated in 2013