Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, J
PRIMAL THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.P.O.No.30608/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Parties must adhere to settlement agreements, and claims of ignorance regarding such settlements are not tenable if prior acknowledgment exists.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25(f), 29, and 33
(C)(1) - Revenue Recovery Act - Writ petition challenging revenue recovery notices and the binding nature of a memorandum of settlement - The appellant failed to adhere to the settlement terms, leading to employee claims for compensation. The court found the appellant's claims of ignorance regarding the settlement unsubstantiated, emphasizing the binding nature of the settlement and the appellant's acknowledgment of the agreement. (Paras 3, 12, 13)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court noted that a party who misleads the court cannot escape without consequences, emphasizing the need for clean hands in judicial proceedings. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, engaged in marine product processing, retrenched employees without compensation, leading to a settlement with the Labour Officer. The appellant later claimed ignorance of the settlement and challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had acknowledged the settlement and was bound by its terms; the appeal was dismissed with costs imposed for misleading the court.
Issues: The key issues included the binding nature of the memorandum of settlement and the appellant's claims of not being aware of it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's prior acknowledgment of the settlement rendered his claims of ignorance untenable, affirming that parties must adhere to settlement agreements.
Result: Appeal dismissed with exemplary costs imposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the labor dispute and settlement process. (Para 4) |
| 2. respondents counter the petitioner's claims regarding settlement awareness. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against the enforceability of the settlement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's review of the petitioner's acknowledgment of the settlement. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court finds misconduct by the petitioner and imposes penalties. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J.
The appellant-petitioner had filed the writ petition before this court with the following prayers:
(i). Call for the records leading to. Exhibits P5, P5(a) and P6 notices and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction.
(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P7 representation within a time limit as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) To declare that Exhibit P8 proceedings is not binding upon the petitioner as the same is not a memorandum of settlement award as contemplated under Rule 59 and Form H of the Industrial Dispute Rules (Kerala), 1957.
(iv) Dispense with the production of English translation of documents which are produced in vernacular language.
2. In the aforementioned prayer besides challenging the revenue recovery notices Exts.P5 and P5(a) dated 11.3.2022 prayer for declaration for denying the execution of the memorandum of Settlement was also sought.
3. Appellant-petitioner had been running a business of Freezing, Processing and Exporting of Marine products and for that purpose, had employed certain employees. The financial position of the Company was in dire-straight and services of the employees were retrenched without payment of the compensation as provided under Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The matter reached the Labour and Conciliation Officer.
The memorandum of settlement dated 19.3.2019 by the District Labour Officer was arrived at consisting of list of the persons against whom the dues of the employees were quantified. The english translation of the memorandum of settlement is extracted herein below:
No.LR.3856/18District Labour Office Alappuzha dated 19/03/2019 Memorandum Of Settlement Participants:
Management:
1)Primal Thomas, ELTE MARINE Complainants:
2.Seethilal general, Secretary, KMSTU-AIUTUC, The Centre, Ambalapuzha
3. NK SASIKUMAR, TALUK PRESIDENT, KMSTU
4. RAJEEV KUMAR ON, CONVENOR, ELTE MARINE UNIT Subject: LT Marine Products, Chandiroor - Regarding Workers' benefits Ref: Complaint by the secretary of the Kerala Matsya Samskarana Thozhillaly Union (KMSTU).
Labour Dispute Summary As indicated above, the union submitted a complaint to this office demanding that the benefits of the workers of ELTE Marine Products located at Chandiroor in Cherthala taluk should be implemented. Based on this, conciliation talks were held in this office on 11/01/19, 21/01/19, 31/01/15, 26/02/19, 06/03/19 and 19/03/19. The management informed that due to the financial crisis, it is not possible to continue the organization and they are ready to dissolve it by giving the benefits to the workers. After the conciliation talks held at this office on 19/03/19 in the presence of the District Labour Officer, the dispute has been settled with the following conditions.03 Settlement Conditions:
1) The management agreed to settle the arrears of salary, gratuity exgratia and bonus to workers.
2) The union accepted the list provided by the management which estimated th above amount of workers.
3) Management agreed to pay the benefits including Provident Funt arrears in between 30/06/19 and 15/07/19.
4) The above terms have been accepted and signed by both parties.
2019March19th Signature of the parties 1 to 4 (Signed) District Labour Officer Alappuzha
4. Having failed to adhere to the aforementioned settlement, the poor employees (ladies) had no other choice but to invoke the provisions of Section 33 C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act by submitting a com
