IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10951 of 2009(L) -------------------------- ID.10/2003 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: THE GENERAL SECRETARY,TECIL EMPLOYEES UNION (I.N.T.U.C.),REG.NO.474/73, CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM,HAVING ITS OFFICE AT INTUC DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE,T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-39. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: 1. S.B.SOMANY, CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, TECIL CHEMICALS AND HYDRO POWER LTD., EMPIRE HOUSE,3RD FLOOR,311,DOCTOR D.N.ROAD, FORT,MUMBAI-4000 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, TECIL WORKERS UNION (A.I.T.U.C.), CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, TECIL WORKERS UNION (C.I.T.U.), CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, TECIL WORKERS UNION (S.T.U.), CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM. 5. THE SECRETARY, TECIL EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION (B.M.S.), CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM. 6. THE SECRETARY, TECIL TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM. 7. THE SECRETARY, TECIL WORKERS UNION (U.T.U.C.), CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM. 8. THE SECRETARY, TECIL THOZHILALI UNION (T.U.C.I.), CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.10951 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd June,2009 J U D G M E N T An industrial dispute was raised in ID 10/2003 between the workman of 1st respondent and 1st respondent. The same was referred to Labour Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner as also respondents 2 to 8 were parties to the said industrial dispute. It seems that during the pendency of the industrial dispute the management and the unions had arrived at a settlement and the same was produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court recorded the same and proceeded to pass an award in the following terms: “ Matter is settled between the parties. Counsel of management had produced a copy of settlement dated 7.2.2007. Counsel of workman has also admitted that the matter is settled. Hence no industrial dispute is to be decided and award is passed accordingly. Copy of settlement is annexed. 2. Petitioner submits that the management had failed to abide by several terms in the settlement dated W.P ( C) No.10951 of 2009 2 7.2.2007. They have gone back on their promises. It is also a contention of the petitioner that the person who had signed on behalf of the petitioner in the settlement dated 7.2.2007 referred to in Exhibit-P6 was not authorised to enter into a settlement on behalf of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition challenging Exhibit-P6. 3. Admittedly the petitioner's union is also a party to the settlement and it is accordingly the Labour Court had taken note of the same. Again the workman including the petitioner’s union had admitted before the Labour Court that the matter is settled. It is not open to the petitioner now to go back on the same and contend that the person who had represented the union in the settlement was not authorized to do so. Secondly if the management had not acted in terms of the settlement that is a matter which might rise to give an industrial dispute. It is up to the petitioner to prosecute the same. But, the award passed by the Labour Court regarding the settlement after hearing all the parties to the settlement and parties to the industrial dispute will not be rendered W.P ( C) No.10951 of 2009 3 invalid for turn out for vital reason. It is always open to the petitioner to work out it's remedies in terms of the provisions of the ID Act. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.10951 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.10951 of 2009 5