Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 9759
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ
KALI SINGH – Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR MS BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED – Respondent
LPA 43 / 2021
A settlement denying back wages upon reinstatement is invalid unless proven lawful and binding under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18 - Workman challenged superannuation on grounds of incorrect date of birth; Industrial Tribunal ruled in favor of reinstatement. Settlement terms included forgoing back wages and treating idle period as dies-non - Court held settlement binding but quashed clauses denying back wages. (Paras 6, 8, 12, 14)
(B) Reinstatement and Back Wages - Court emphasized that reinstatement implies entitlement to back wages unless proven otherwise by the employer. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The workman claimed incorrect superannuation based on disputed date of birth, leading to reinstatement by Industrial Tribunal and subsequent settlement denying back wages.
Findings of Court:
The settlement denying back wages was quashed, affirming reinstatement and entitlement to wages.
Issues: Whether the settlement terms denying back wages were binding and lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a settlement must comply with statutory requirements and cannot deny wages without valid justification.
Result: Writ petition allowed, clauses quashed.
ORDER
29 th August 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The workman has challenged the order dated 18 th December 2020 passed in W.P(L) No.2627 of 2014.
2. The workman claimed that his date of birth is 14 th February 1954 but, while more than seven years of his service remained, he was made to superannuate with effect from 30 th June 2006. This led to the raising of a dispute which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad (in short, “Industrial Tribunal) vide Notification dated 9 th November 2009 in the following terms:
“Whether the action of the management of Jogidih colliery of M/s BCCL in superannuating Sri Kali Singh, Attendance Clerk w.e.f. 30.06.2006 when there is discrepancy in his date of various records is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”
3. The Industrial Tribunal has answered the aforesaid reference in favor of the workman and made the Award dated 15 th March 2013 holding that the action of the Management of Jogidih Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, “BCCL”) in superannuating the workman with effect from 30 th June 2006 is not legal and justified. The Industrial Tribunal has therefore ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuation in service within 10 days.
4. The Award was not challenged by the BCCL and a settlement in Form-H was entered into between the parties on 17 th August 2013, which recorded the following terms and conditions:
“1. As per the above Award, The DOB of Sri Kali Singh, Attendance Clerk Pers No.00238303 of Jogidih Colliery, Govindpur Area is accepted as 14.02.1954 instead of 27.06.1946.
2. Sri Kali Singh, Attendance Clerk, Pers. No.00238303 of Jogidih Colliery, Govindpur Area will not claim any back wages for the idle period.
3. The period of idleness shall be treated as dies-non. However, continuity of service shall be maintained for the purpose of Gratuity.
4. Pension amount dues for the intervening period shall be deposited by Sri Kall Singh, Attendance Clerk, Pers. No. 00238303 of Jogidih Colliery, Govindpur Area in due course.
4. 5 Sri Kali Singh, Attendance Clerk, Pers.No.00238303 of Jogidih Colliery, Govindpur Area as well as representing union will withdraw the case for DOB in respect of Sri Kali Singh un-conditionally if any pending before any Forum i.e. judicial or quasi-judicial like Labour Court, High Court etc.”
5. The workman who is the appellant before us tendered his joining on 20 th August 2013. But, at the same time, he challenged a portion of the aforesaid settlement dated 17 th August 2013 whereby he was denied back wages, by filing W.P(L) No.2627 of 2014.
6. The writ Court has held as under:
“7. Before delving into the issue as to whether workman is entitled for back wages in view of reinstatement into service, it would be pertinent to examine as to whether settlement dated 19.08.2013, arrived at in pursuance of Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 is binding on the parties or not ?
8. Since the settlement arrived at binds both the parties, therefore, the settlement dated 19.08.2013, which contains two fold settlement, first, regarding reinstatement of the writ petitioner and second, forgoing of the right of back wages as also not to make any claim for the period of idleness is binding on both the parties. Since the terms of memorandum binds the parties, therefore, it can comfortably be said that it is not open to the writ petitioner to question the memorandum of settlement which has taken shape of the statutory fervor in terms of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto. vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the settlement arrived in pursuant to Section 18 is having its binding effect having its statutory fervor.
Since the settlement is binding upon the parties, therefore, it is not permissible for the writ petitioner to
