The court reaffirmed that wage claims under Section 33-C(2) are distinct from prior settlements, allowing pursuit of multiple claims without extinguishing earlier rights.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

The present appeal is filed by the Commissioner, City Corporation, Vijayapura calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.202284/2021 dated 09.09.2024 whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the order of settlement entered into in relation to the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID Act’) came to be rejected.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant- Commissioner, City Corporation, Vijayapura is referred as ‘Employer’ and private respondents as ‘Workmen’.

3. The facts leading to present round of litigation are that the workmen had joined the services of the employer as Watermen in the year 1985 and their services have been extended with benefit of Time Scales. It is asserted that the services of the workmen were orally terminated on 20.01.1986. In connection with such oral order of termination, the disputes were raised and reference is made to the Labour Court for their retrenchment in KID No.196/1993 and connected matters. Initially the Labour Court at Hubli had awarded reinstatement of workmen into service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The said order came to be challenged by way of Writ Petition No.33816/1995 by the employer and the said Writ Petition, however, came to be rejected confirming the order of the Labour Court passed in KID No.196/1993 and connected matters.

4. The said order of the learned Single Judge was taken up before the Division Bench in W.A.No.8105/1999 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh disposal. After remand, the Labour Court once again allowed the claim petition in respect of 17 workmen and set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement with full backwages. It is stated that in order to implement the award of the Labour Court that had attained finality, the workmen initiated proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.19/2006 and connected matters seeking for backwages and prospective wages. The said Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were filed under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, ‘the Act’). Copy of the applications filed under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act has been produced along with a memo and the prayers in the said applications are as follows:

In Crl.Misc.Nos.35/2006, 20/2006, 25/2006, 30/2006, 19/2006, 32/2006, 34/2006, 33/2006, 31/2006 The petitioner prays that a direction may be issued under Sub-section 3 of Section 15 for:

a) Refund of the amount of Rs.7,22,338/- illegally deducted.

b) Awarding of compensation not exceeding 10 times the claim.

c) Awarding of 18% interest per annum throughout from the due date till the date of realization with costs.

d) Allowing of amendments as and when felt necessary and fair.

e) Awarding of such other reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to from the facts and circumstances of the case.

In Crl.Misc.Nos.29/2006, 28/2006, 26/2006 The petitioner prays that a direction may be issued under Sub-section 3 of Section 15 for:

a) Refund of the amount of Rs.7,20,200/- illegally deducted.

b) Awarding of compensation not exceeding 10 times the claim.

c) Awarding of 18% interest per annum throughout from the due date till the date of realization with costs.

d) Allowing of amendments as and when felt necessary and fair.

e) Awarding of such other reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to from the facts and circumstances of the case.

In Crl.Misc.No.24/2006 The petitioner prays that a direction may be issued under Sub-section 3 of Section 15 for:

a) Refund of t