THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.1144 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sunil B.Ganu, representing learned counsel Ms. K.Maanasa, appears for the appellant.

Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services - II, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.

Learned counsel Sri B.Balaji, representing learned counsel Sri C.Nageshwar Rao, appears for the unofficial respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. 58 workmen of the appellant raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for implementation of an oral settlement entered into by the union and the management under the guidance of the President of the Union. I.D.No.02 of 2015 was instituted upon reference by the Labour Department. The workmen were seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. The workmen had retired between the years 2008 to 2012. The learned Industrial Tribunal – II at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”) by an order dated 15.02.2021 declined the relief by holding as under:

“17. In view of the above decision, in this case all the petitioners are retired from the services from 2006 to 2012 and now they want to implement the settlement arrived by Management and Union in the year 2013 under Ex.M1. As per Ex.M1. As per Ex.M1, the previous settlement dt:16.6.2010 was terminated due to new settlement entered by Union and the Management on 8.11.2013 before the conciliation officer u/s 12(3) r/w section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per the admission of WW1 and WW2, the terms and conditions entered by the Union with the Management is binding on all the employees. Whereas the petitioners retired from the services on different dates from 2006 onwards to 2012. On the other hand, the respondent clearly established that there was a settlement between union and Management before the conciliation officer under Ex.MI in the place of old settlement and new settlement was came into effect on 8.11.2013. If that is so, the terms and conditions mentioned in settlement in the year 2013 is not binding on the petitioners and this court have no jurisdiction directing the management to apply the same with retrospective affect. On the other hand, as per section 2(p) any other settlement must be in writing and it should be duly signed by both parties. Therefore, the oral settlement raised before the late Sri P. Janardhan Reddy ex-union President of the Respondent Company/Minister have no force in the eye of law. Therefore, there is no any justification to the petitioners to demand the respondent company to apply the terms and conditions mentioned in 2013 settlement retrospectively to the employees who are retired in the year 2006 to 2012.

18. On the other hand, this court found latches on part of the petitioners that alleged to be legal Representatives of deceased employee's straight way added as parties to the reference without adding the names of deceased employee and his occupational status. Apart from above, the petitioners are all retired from the services long back and accepted the retirement benefits without any protest till raising the dispute before the Labour Commissioner vide their representation dt: 31.12.2014. Admittedly, the demands of group of retired employees were not supported by Union before the Joint Commissioner.

19. Apart from above, except WW1 and WW2, other petitioners were not given any authorization on their behalf to adjudicate the issue before this Court. On the other hand, once the employee retired from the services after attaining superannuation it automatically ends the relationship of employee and employer other than in a case of removal, retrenchment, lay off closure etc. then only the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable. Here the petitioners retired long back and received the payments without any protest. Therefore, the management thinks that there is no any dispute