----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dates of hearing: 7 th and 28 th February, 2024 and 29 th April, 2024 Date of judgment: 29 th April, 2024.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (management). He submits, there was settlement, found record in orders dated 20th October, 2020 and 9th November, 2020 made by co-ordinate Bench on writ petition WP(C) no.4090 of 2016 (parties’ own case). In spite thereof impugned orders dated 9th December, 2022 and 2nd September, 2023 were made by the Labour Court, disregarding the settlement, taken cognizance by the writ Court. In the circumstances, his client has challenged impugned orders.

2. Mrs. Pattanaik, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.3 (union). He submits, his client was represented before co-ordinate Bench, when aforesaid orders were made. He submits further, some workmen did not accept the settlement and moved the Labour Court Page 3 of 16 to obtain impugned orders, in their favour, whereby the Labour Court purported to go beyond the settlement.

3. Impugned orders dated 9th December, 2022 and 2nd September, 2023 are orders made in proceedings instituted by 292 workmen under section 33-C (2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking computation of benefit in terms of money arising out of declaration that the lockout was illegal and unjustified, by award dated 30th December, 2015 in I.D. Case no.51 of 2013. On the writ petition moved (7th December, 2023) we had directed petitioner to apply for adding the workmen, at whose instance or in whose favour impugned orders were passed. We had made the direction because petitioner (management) has challenged impugned orders on contention that, as aforesaid, by memorandum dated 12th August, 2020 settlement was arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen, otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding. It is binding on the workmen.

4. Mr. Nanda submits, his client had accordingly filed I.A. no.19388 of 2023 with prayer to add three workmen, in compliance of the direction in order dated 7th December, 2023. The workmen are firstly, the workman in favour of whom rest applicants-workmen Page 4 of 16 had filed Form-G. Second and third were the two workmen, who had deposed before the Labour Court in the computation proceeding. He submits further, Mr. Das, learned advocate is appearing for interveners-applicants (in IA no.290 of 2024), among whom applicant no.8 is one of said three workmen, to be added as parties. Copies of the application were served. The workmen, to be added, have also filed their counter/objection.

5. I.A. no.19388 of 2023 was allowed on the persons mentioned in the schedule, added as opposite party nos.4 to 6. Petitioner had leave to cause the amendment in Court, to be countersigned by Court Master. The application, though dealt with earlier, is formally disposed of today.

6. On 28th February, 2024 Mr. Das had made submissions on behalf of his clients, the opposing workmen. Paragraphs-1 and 2 in our order dated 28th February, 2024 are record of his submissions, reproduced below.

“1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.4, 5 and 6 as well as applicant-

interveners. He submits, the lock out was illegal.

Accordingly award dated 30th December, 2015 was duly Page 5 of 16 made. Challenge thereto by WP(C) no.4090 of 2016 was disposed of on purported settlement. The settlement was not duly executed. His clients went before the labour Court for computation of their benefit pursuant to the award. Orders made in the proceeding have bee