[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
M/S. Garlick Engineering ( An Erstwhile ... vs Shri. Suresh Krishna Patil And Ors on 26 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:14399
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3805 OF 2019
1. Garlick Engineering
(Erstwhile closed Divison of M/s. Empire
Industries Ltd) Empire House,
SHABNOOR
AYUB 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
Mumbai - 400 013.
PATHAN
Date: 2026.03.26
12:12:46 +0530 2. R. Malhotra
Vice Chairman
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013.
3. Vijay G. Sawant
General Manager-Personnel
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013. ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Suresh H. Karale
Hari Krishna Darshan Bungalow
Belavi,Badlapur (W) Taluka Ambernath,
District Thane.
2. D G Gosavi
Lotus Apartment, Wadavali Section
Ambernath East
Taluka Amernath Dist. Thane
3. S S. Adhangale
Jai- Bheem Co-op Society, Ghadge Nagar,
Ambernath (West)
Taluka Ambernath, Dist. Thane
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:39 :::
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
4. B W Ghawat
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor
Rashmi Apartment, Wadavali Section
Ambernath (E) Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
Thane
5. D A Shetty
Room No. 8, 1st Floor Mali Building Near
Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Kalyan West
Taluka Kalyan, Dist. Thane ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3836 OF 2019
1. Garlick Engineering
(Erstwhile closed Divison of M/s.
Empire Industries Ltd) Empire House,
414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai - 400 013.
2. R. Malhotra
Vice Chairman
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat
Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013.
3. Vijay G. Sawant
General Manager-Personnel
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat
Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013. ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Suresh Krishna Patil
Patil Niwas, House NO. 1191 Morivali,
Ambernath (W)
Taluka Ambernath, Dist. Thane.
2
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:39 :::
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
2. Vinayak Shantaram Gholap
Manjarli Belavi Vidhyapeth Road
Badlapur (W) Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
Thane.
3. Shivaji Raghunath Gade
A/1. 03 Jaisel Apartments, Shanti
Nagar, Dombivli West, Dist. Thane
4. B. T. Belhekar
A/10, Arya Darshan Apartment Belavli,
Badlapur West, Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
Thane
5. C. V. Kamble
Kamlakar Chawl, Halyachapada Shiv
Mandir Road, Ambernath E, Taluka
Ambernath, Dist. Thane. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14721 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3805 OF 2019
1. Suresh H. Karale
Hari Krishna Darshan Bungalow
Belavi,Badlapur (W) Taluka Ambernath,
Dist. Thane.
2. D G Gosavi
Lotus Apartment, Wadavali Section
Ambernath East
Taluka Amernath Dist. Thane
3. S S. Adhangale
Jai- Bheem Co-op Society, Ghadge Nagar,
Ambernath (West)
Taluka Ambernath, Dist. Thane
3
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:39 :::
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
4. B W Ghawat
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor
Rashmi Apartment, Wadavali Section
Ambernath (E) Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
Thane
5. D A Shetty
Room No. 8, 1st Floor Mali Building Near
Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Kalyan West
Taluka Kalyan, Dist. Thane ... Applicants
In the matter Between
1. Garlick Engineering
(Erstwhile closed Divison of M/s. Empire
Industries Ltd) Empire House,
414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai - 400 013.
2. R. Malhotra
Vice Chairman
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013.
3. Vijay G. Sawant
General Manager-Personnel
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013. ... Petitioners
V/s
1. Suresh H. Karale
Hari Krishna Darshan Bungalow
Belavi,Badlapur (W) Taluka Ambernath,
Dist. Thane.
4
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:39 :::
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
2. D G Gosavi
Lotus Apartment, Wadavali Section
Ambernath East
Taluka Amernath Dist. Thane
3. S S. Adhangale
Jai- Bheem Co-op Society, Ghadge Nagar,
Ambernath (West)
Taluka Ambernath, Dist. Thane
4. B W Ghawat
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor
Rashmi Apartment, Wadavali Section
Ambernath (E) Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
Thane
5. D A Shetty
Room No. 8, 1st Floor Mali Building Near
Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Kalyan West
Taluka Kalyan, Dist. Thane ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17024 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3836 OF 2019
1. Suresh Krishna Patil
Patil Niwas, House NO. 1191 Morivali,
Ambernath (W)
Taluka Ambernath, Dist. Thane.
2. Shivaji Raghunath Gade
A/1, 03 Jaisel Apartments, Shanti Nagar,
Dombivli West, Dist. Thane
3. B. T. Belhekar
A/10, Arya Darshan Apartment Belavli,
Badlapur West, Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
5
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:39 :::
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
Thane
4. C. V. Kamble
Kamlakar Chawl, Halyachapada Shiv
Mandir Road, Ambernath E, Taluka
Ambernath, Dist. Thane. ... Applicants
In the matter between
1. Garlick Engineering
(Erstwhile closed Divison of M/s. Empire
Industries Ltd) Empire House,
414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai - 400 013.
2. R. Malhotra
Vice Chairman
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013.
3 Vijay G. Sawant
General Manager-Personnel
Empire Industries Ltd
Empire House, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013. ... Petitioners
V/s
1. Suresh Krishna Patil
Patil Niwas, House NO. 1191 Morivali,
Ambernath (W)
Taluka Ambernath, Dist. Thane.
2. Vinayak Shantaram Gholap
Manjarli Belavi Vidhyapeth Road
Badlapur (W) Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
Thane.
3. Shivaji Raghunath Gade
6
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:39 :::
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
A/1. 03 Jaisel Apartments, Shanti Nagar,
Dombivli West, Dist. Thane
4. B. T. Belhekar
A/10, Arya Darshan Apartment Belavli,
Badlapur West, Taluka Ambernath, Dist.
Thane.
5. C. V. Kamble
Kamlakar Chawl, Halyachapada Shiv
Mandir Road, Ambernath E, Taluka
Ambernath, Dist. Thane. ... Respondents
Mr1. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sujeet
Salkar, for Petitioners.
Mr. Ravindra B Nair, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in both
petitions and Applicant in both IAs.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 12, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 26, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present Petitions instituted under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioners call in question the legality
and correctness of the judgment and order dated 17 January 2019
passed by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 79
of 2013. By the said order, the Industrial Court has partly allowed
the complaint and has recorded a finding that the Respondents
have indulged in unfair labour practices falling under Item 5 of
Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
Court has further directed the Respondents to pay lockout wages
to the Complainants for the period commencing from 23
September 1992 up to the respective dates of resignation or
acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, within a period of
three months, with a stipulation that in default, the said amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the
date of the order till its realization.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present Petitions may be
briefly stated thus. The Petitioner was an undertaking of M/s.
Empire Industries Limited and was engaged in the manufacture of
EOT cranes at its factory situated at Thane. The Respondents
herein were in the employment of the Petitioner. It is the case of
the Petitioner that owing to certain coercive, obstructive and
disruptive acts on the part of the workmen, it was constrained to
declare a lockout and suspend the operations of the factory with
effect from 23 September 1992. As no amicable settlement could
be reached between the parties, the demands raised by the Union
came to be referred for adjudication by the State Government. On
the very same date, namely 23 September 1992, the State
Government issued a prohibitory order restraining continuation of
the lockout. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner by
instituting Writ Petition No. 6051 of 1995 before this Court, which
was admitted and interim relief was granted, but ultimately came
to be dismissed by order dated 9 February 2001. The Petitioner
thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 70 of 2001, which
was initially entertained with continuation of interim relief, but the
same also came to be dismissed by order dated 1 April 2005.
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
3. During the pendency of the industrial disputes, the Petitioner
introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme applicable to workmen
between the ages of 50 and 58 years. Under the said scheme, the
workmen opting for voluntary retirement were required to submit
their resignations and, upon acceptance thereof, were made
entitled to receive wages for the months of July, August and
September 1991, encashment of privilege leave, gratuity in
accordance with law, provident fund accumulations, and an ex
gratia payment computed at the rate of 30 days' wages for each
completed year of service. It is an admitted position that all
workmen, except 60, availed the benefits of the said scheme and
accepted the amounts in full and final settlement of their claims
without raising any protest or reservation.
4. On 26 April 1996, the undertaking came to be closed down
and the remaining 60 workmen were terminated upon payment of
their statutory and legal dues. Thereafter, the Union instituted
Complaint (ULP) No. 260 of 1998 before the Industrial Court,
challenging the legality of the closure and the termination of the
said 60 workmen. The Industrial Court, by its order dated 24
February 1999, dismissed the said complaint. The aforesaid order
was carried in challenge by the Union by filing Writ Petition No.
3106 of 1999 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by
order dated 4 October 1999. The Union thereafter preferred
Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 2000. During the pendency of the
said appeal, the parties arrived at consent terms, whereby it was
agreed that the Union would withdraw its challenge to the closure,
the workmen would be paid closure compensation or benefits
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, whichever was higher,
subject to agreed deductions, and the appeal would stand disposed
of accordingly. It was, however, expressly clarified that such
withdrawal would be without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties in Writ Petition No. 6051 of 1995, which
pertained to the validity of the lockout.
5. The said 60 workmen, whose services had been terminated,
thereafter instituted Complaint (ULP) No. 24 of 2004 before the
Industrial Court, claiming wages for the lockout period. During the
pendency of the said proceedings, a settlement dated 6 February
2011 came to be arrived at between the Union and the Petitioner,
whereunder the claims of the said 60 workmen were settled upon
payment of certain ex gratia amounts. It was specifically stipulated
that the said settlement would be confined only to the said 60
workmen and would not extend to any other persons. In or about
February 2012, as many as 41 plus 146 persons, who had earlier
tendered their resignations under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme in the year 1995, instituted Complaint (ULP) Nos. 78 and
79 of 2013, claiming payment of lockout wages from the date of
the lockout till their respective dates of resignation, together with
interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum and compensation.
The said complainants also preferred applications seeking
condonation of delay in filing the complaints, which applications
came to be allowed by consent of the parties.
6. On 15 March 2012, the Petitioner moved an application
seeking framing of a preliminary issue on the ground that the
complainants, having voluntarily resigned under the Voluntary
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
Retirement Scheme and having accepted the amounts in full and
final settlement, had no locus to maintain the complaints. It was
further contended that upon such resignation, the complainants
had ceased to be "workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and "employees" within the
meaning of the MRTU & PULP Act. By order dated 2 February
2013, the Industrial Court framed a preliminary issue with regard
to the maintainability of the complaints in light of the aforesaid
objections. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed its list of documents on
22 February 2013, which included specimen copies of final
settlement receipts, relieving letters and statements evidencing full
and final settlement. By order dated 3 May 2013, the Industrial
Court rejected the preliminary objections and directed that all
issues be decided together at the stage of final hearing. Aggrieved
thereby, the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 625 of 2014
before this Court, which came to be withdrawn with liberty, and
this Court observed that all issues would be decided on their own
merits at the time of final adjudication. On 9 September 2015, the
Industrial Court framed issues for trial; however, it did not frame
or decide the issue relating to the status of the complainants post
acceptance of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as a preliminary
issue. During the course of trial, the complainants adduced oral as
well as documentary evidence. The Petitioner, though having
placed documentary material on record, did not lead oral
evidence. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 17 January
2019, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaints, holding
that the Petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, and directed
payment of lockout wages from 23 September 1992 till the
respective dates of resignation, with interest in case of default.
Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have instituted the present
Petitions.
7. Mr. Talsania, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the Petitioners, submits that the Industrial Court ought to have
dismissed the complaint in limine, having regard to the admitted
position that the complainants had either opted for the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme or had otherwise resigned from the services of
the Petitioner Company. It is his contention that the Industrial
Court has failed to appreciate that the complainants were not
parties to, nor covered by, the Consent Terms arrived at in Writ
Petition No. 3106 of 1999, and consequently, no enforceable right
accrued to them to claim lockout wages. It is further urged that the
Industrial Court has overlooked the settlement dated 6 February
2011, which was entered into with the recognized union, wherein
it was expressly agreed that, except for the 60 workmen
specifically covered therein, no other claims would be raised by
any other workmen, nor would the union espouse such claims on
their behalf. It is further contended that the Industrial Court has
failed to give due weight to the fact that the complainants had
executed receipts acknowledging receipt of amounts in full and
final settlement and had unequivocally declared that no further
claims would be raised against the Petitioner. In that view of the
matter, it is submitted that the complainants are estopped from
asserting any claim for lockout wages. It is also urged that the
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
findings recorded by the Industrial Court are perverse inasmuch as
it has failed to draw a valid distinction between those workmen
who had resigned or accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme
and those who continued in employment till the date of closure.
According to the Petitioners, these two categories stand on entirely
different legal footing. The workmen who continued in service till
closure had expressly reserved their right to claim lockout wages,
whereas the present respondents, by voluntarily severing their
relationship of employment under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme or by resignation, had relinquished all their claims,
including any entitlement to lockout wages.
8. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the
Industrial Court that the Petitioner has engaged in unfair labour
practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act is
wholly unsustainable and suffers from perversity, particularly in
the absence of any material to indicate that the Respondents had
preserved or asserted any right to claim lockout wages. It is also
urged that the Industrial Court has failed to appreciate that the
present respondents were not in employment during the relevant
period, whereas the other set of workmen, who continued in
service, were parties to the proceedings before the Supreme Court
concerning the validity of the lockout. It is further submitted that
the Industrial Court has committed an error apparent on the face
of the record in distinguishing the judgment in the case of U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464, wherein it has been
held that persons who remain passive or "sit on the fence" cannot
subsequently claim benefits. According to the Petitioners, the
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
Industrial Court has also erred in not considering that the present
complaints were not maintainable in view of Clause 8 of the
settlement dated 6 February 2011, which, having been executed by
the recognized union, is binding on the Respondents. It is further
submitted that the reliance placed by the Industrial Court on the
judgment in A. Satyanarayana Reddy v. Labour Court, (2016) 9
SCC 462 is misplaced and inapplicable to the facts of the present
case, inasmuch as the said decision arose in the context of
proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It is contended that, in the present case, there exists no pre-
existing or adjudicated right in favour of the complainants to claim
lockout wages, particularly when there has been no determination
as to the justifiability or otherwise of the lockout. In that view, the
finding of the Industrial Court applying the said judgment is
contrary to the settled position of law as well as the material
available on record.
9. Per contra, Mr. Nair, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the Respondents, submits that there is no material on record to
indicate that the workmen had waived or relinquished their
statutory right to claim lockout wages for the period commencing
from 21 September 1992 till the respective dates of their
resignation. It is his submission that the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme, as relied upon by the Petitioners, does not disclose
payment of any comprehensive or adequate compensation to the
workmen. According to him, the said scheme was not a voluntary
arrangement in the true sense, but was in the nature of a
compelled settlement, under which only partial payments were
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
made and no complete or final settlement of all claims was
effected. It is further submitted that the recognized union had
executed documents on behalf of 60 workmen without prejudice to
their rights. It is contended that certain workmen were, in fact,
paid lockout wages, and therefore, the conduct of the Petitioners
squarely attracts Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.
Learned counsel has drawn attention to the documents on record,
including receipts, to demonstrate that payments were made
towards notice pay, closure compensation, gratuity, wages, income
tax adjustments, medical benefits, leave encashment, and wages
for the month of July 1991. It is submitted that even though some
of the receipts contain clauses stating that the workmen would not
claim lockout wages, such stipulations cannot operate to defeat or
extinguish the statutory entitlement of the workmen to claim such
wages.
10. Inviting attention to the provisions of Section 10(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, it is submitted that where an industrial
dispute exists in relation to a lockout, the same is capable of being
referred for adjudication to the competent forum. Further reliance
is placed on Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act to contend
that the adjudicatory authority is empowered to grant wages for
the relevant period. On the aforesaid premises, it is submitted that
the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
11. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the documents
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
placed on record, and the rival submissions, this Court finds that
the real question is not whether lockout wages can ever be claimed
in law. The real question is whether these particular complainants,
after having accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme or having
resigned from service and after having received amounts in full
and final settlement, still retained any surviving right to claim
lockout wages for the period of lockout.
12. The case of the Petitioners is that these complainants were
not in service when they filed these complaints. This fact is not
disputed. Some of them had taken benefit under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme. Some had chosen to resign on their own. In
both situations, the relationship of employer and employee had
already come to an end. It is further shown from the record that at
the time of leaving service, each of them accepted certain
amounts. These amounts were made towards settlement of all
dues. Along with that, receipts were signed. In those receipts, it is
clearly written that the payment is in full and final settlement and
that no further claim will be made against the employer. This
shows that the parties themselves closed their accounts at that
stage.
13. The Petitioners have also placed reliance on the settlement
dated 6 February 2011 entered with the recognised union. That
settlement applies only to 60 workmen. The language of the
settlement makes this position clear that it does not extend to
others. Therefore, the Petitioners say that the present complainants
were consciously kept outside that settlement. From this, the
Petitioners argue that these complainants cannot now turn back
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
and claim lockout wages, especially after having already accepted
the benefits and having left service long back. This reasoning
appears to be supported by the documents. The record shows that
settlements were made individually and also collectively, and those
settlements were acted upon.
14. It is also necessary to see that all workmen cannot be treated
as one single group without difference. The Petitioners are correct
in saying that two separate categories existed. One category
consisted of those who continued in service till the closure of the
undertaking. These workmen remained in employment and, as it
appears from the record, had kept their rights open regarding the
lockout issue. The second category is of the present complainants.
They did not continue till closure. They exited earlier by accepting
VRS or by resignation. When a person continues in service, his
rights may remain alive in a different manner. But when a person
voluntarily leaves service and accepts settlement without any clear
reservation, then the situation changes. In such a case, the Court
cannot later assume that some right was still kept alive, when the
documents do not say so. The Industrial Court, in the present case,
did not properly notice this difference.
15. The receipts and settlement therefore become very
important. These are are written records of what the parties
agreed. When a workman signs a document stating that he has
received full and final payment and that no further claim remains,
the Court must normally accept that position. Of course, there can
be exceptions. If it is shown that the signature was obtained by
force, fraud, or some serious pressure, then the Court can ignore
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
such document. But such allegation must be proved. Mere saying
that it was forced is not enough. There must be some material. In
the present case, such material is not seen. The complainants have
not brought any convincing evidence to show that they were
compelled in a manner recognised by law. On the contrary, the
documents support the stand of the Petitioners that settlements
were knowingly accepted.
16. At the same time, the argument of the Respondents cannot
be ignored altogether. Mr. Nair has argued that lockout wages are
a statutory right and cannot be taken away easily. He has also
relied upon the judgment in Satyanarayana Reddy to say that even
after VRS, if some claims are not covered, they can still be raised.
This principle is correct in law. The Supreme Court has indeed said
that if a scheme does not include certain dues, then those dues can
still be claimed. But that is only one side of the principle. The
other side is equally clear. If the scheme or settlement covers the
claim, then the matter ends there. No further claim can be raised.
Therefore, one has to see the documents carefully to find out
whether the present claim was kept outside or was included within
the settlement. When the record of the present case is examined in
that light, it becomes clear that the Respondents are not able to
show that lockout wages were kept outside the settlement. There is
no clear reservation in their favour. The receipts do not preserve
such claim. The VRS and other settlement documents do not show
that such claim was left open. On the contrary, they indicate
closure of all claims. Once such written position exists, the burden
shifts on the complainants to prove otherwise. They must show
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
that despite the words used, the claim still survives. That has not
been done.
17. The argument that this is a statutory right also does not fully
help the Respondents in these facts. It is correct that labour law
protects workmen. It is also correct that unfair practices are not
allowed. But at the same time, the law also recognises settlements.
If a workman, on his own, accepts a settlement and takes its
benefit, then he cannot later reopen the same matter, unless there
is a strong legal reason. Otherwise, no settlement will have finality.
Industrial peace depends on certainty. If parties are allowed to
reopen settled issues again and again, it will create confusion and
instability. Therefore, settlements must be given due effect.
18. The reference to Item 5 of Schedule IV also does not change
the position. That provision deals with unfair conduct like refusal
to bargain or failure to implement settlements in bad faith. In the
present case, after the complainants left service and accepted
payments, there was no continuing obligation shown on the part of
the Petitioners towards them. Once the relationship ended and
settlements were honoured, it cannot be said that there was unfair
labour practice only because a fresh claim is now made. The
finding of the Industrial Court on this aspect does not appear to be
supported by the material on record.
19. It is also important to note that the complainants were not
parties to the earlier consent terms in Writ Petition No. 3106 of
1999. This fact does not help them. It only shows that those
proceedings concerned a different set of workmen. The present
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
complainants cannot say that those consent terms do not bind
them, and at the same time try to take advantage of the situation
created by those proceedings. They cannot choose one part and
reject another. Their stand becomes inconsistent. Such
inconsistency cannot be accepted.
20. The same reasoning applies to Clause 8 of the settlement
dated 6 February 2011. That settlement clearly limits itself to 60
workmen. It does not speak about others. When the parties
themselves fixed the boundary, the Court cannot expand it. Nor
can persons outside that boundary claim its benefit. The settlement
must be read as it is, and not as it could have been.
21. In view of all this, the reliance on the judgment in
Satyanarayana Reddy does not assist the Respondents. That
judgment helps only where the claim is not part of the settlement.
Here, the record indicates that the claims stood concluded.
Therefore, the Industrial Court was not correct in applying that
decision in the manner it has done.
22. Taking the entire matter together, this Court finds that the
complaints should not have been allowed. The complainants had
already ended their employment. They had accepted the benefits.
They had signed documents showing full settlement. They had not
kept any clear claim alive. In such circumstances, it was not open
to hold that the Petitioners committed unfair labour practice by
not paying lockout wages to them. The impugned order, therefore,
proceeds on a misunderstanding of both facts and law. It cannot be
sustained.
WP-3805-19 with connected-J.doc
23. In the result, the following order is passed:
a) The Writ Petitions succeed and are allowed;
b) The impugned judgment and order dated 17 January
2019 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint
(ULP) No. 79 of 2013 is quashed and set aside;
c) Complaint (ULP) Nos. 78 and 79 of 2013 stand
dismissed;
d) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
25. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, all pending interim
applications stand disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
