1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1730 OF 2008. Bhagwan Sudam Patil and others ... Petitioners. Versus Dhule District Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd.,Dhule ... Respondent. ... Mr.Girish Rane, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.A.More, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 06.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn a part of the judgment and order rendered 2 in their complaint (ULP) No.27/2006 regarding grant of the benefits of settlement from date of filing of the complaint instead of grant of such benefits from the date of discontinuance of such benefits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The question involved in this petition is rather a short one. The petitioners filed complaint before the Industrial Court at Dhule, seeking benefits of the settlement. They alleged that the Respondent (employer) committed unfair labour practices within the meaning of item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act). They urged for grant of benefits of the settlement which was arrived at between the workmen and the employer under terms which has been reduced into writing on 27.10.1996. They asserted that the Respondent - Bank committed unfair labour practices by denying the benefits of additional dearness allowance with 3 effect from 1.2.1998 and other benefits such as leave travel fare concession from 1.4.2000 though it was so agreed under the terms of settlement. The Respondent - Bank resisted their claim on various grounds including the objection about maintainability of the complaint. The learned Member of the Industrial Court allowed the complaint application and directed that the Respondent Bank shall give the benefits of the settlement to the petitioners from date of filing of the complaint. 5. It is amply clear that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has not ascribed any specific reason as to why the benefits were not given to the petitioners from the date of discontinuation of the same. In fact, the grievance of the petitioners was that the terms of the settlement arrived at between them and the Respondent - Bank were not being translated into action. They sought relief from the Industrial Court so as to call upon the Respondent - Bank to take affirmative action and release the benefits as per the terms of the settlement. It need not 4 be emphasised that once the settlement is arrived at then the employer will be required to keep the word as per the agreement. The employer can not back out from such terms of settlement without there being tangible reason permissible under the law. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has not ascribed any legal reason to deny such benefits to the petitioners from date of discontinuation though, in fact, they were eligible to receive such benefits from the dates enumerated in the terms of settlement. It appears that the Managing Director of the Apex Body of the Cooperative Banks by letter dated 30.10.1998, informed the President of such Bank employees organisation that the due amount shall be paid alongwith the difference in the dearness allowance w.e.f. 1.2.1998. Mr.More, argued that the petitioners had not submitted declarations as per proforma as shown in the term (d). He would submit that the petitioners were not eligible to claim the benefits due to non-performance of the terms. It is difficult to countenance his contention inasmuch as the learned Member of the Industrial has already granted the benefits and 5 there is no challenge to the said order on part of the employer. In ordinary course, unless the Industrial Court could have special reason to deny such benefits to the petitioners from the date of discontinuation of the said benefits, there was no reason to direct grant of such benefits from date of filing of the complaint. In this view of the matter, such impugned part of the judgment and order dated 28.8.2007 deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order to the extent of date from which the benefits are directed to be given is quashed and modified. The petitioners shall be entitled to receive the benefits as per the settlement in terms thereof from the date of the discontinuation thereof as per the dates on which such benefits due to each of them. The payments which are already made shall be deducted and no interest would be chargeable. The Respondent- Bank shall clear the arrears of such payments within a period of eight (8) weeks after preparing the necessary data in respect of each 6 of the petitioner regarding the amount due within a period of four (4) weeks. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp173008