IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.2865 of 2006 Date: 16th August, 2010 Between: K.C.P. Sugar and Industries Corporation Ltd., represented by its Plant Manager. .. Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur and others. .. Respondents ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the order made in E.P.No.18 of 2005 in I.D.No.14 of 1986 dated 31.1.2006 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, whereunder the application filed under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC for reinstatement of workman into service and for recovery of back wages by way of arrest of judgment debtor was allowed. Petitioner is management and second respondent is workman. It appears, when the services of the respondent-workman were terminated, he raised a dispute and ultimately the same was referred for industrial adjudication by way of I.D.No.14 of 1986. The said I.D. was disposed of by award dated 5.6.1990 directing reinstatement of workman into service, with continuity of service, but without any back wages. Aggrieved thereby, management filed Writ Petition No.16460 of 1990 and the workman also filed Writ Petition No.5338 of 1991 seeking back wages. Insofar as writ petition filed by the workman is concerned, he had withdrawn the said writ petition. Insofar as writ petition filed by the management is concerned, it was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.3.2001. However, during the pendency of the above writ petitions, management as well as workman entered into a Settlement under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 26.12.1997. As per the said settlement, workman was paid a sum of Rs.2,85,000/-. It was also recited in the settlement that it was agreed that a copy of the settlement will be filed in all pending legal proceedings, seeking dismissal of such proceedings in terms of the settlement. While that being so, it appears, the present E.P.No.18 of 2005 in I.D.No.14 of 1986 was filed by respondent-workman claiming reinstatement, back wages by way of arrest of judgment debtor in view of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.14 of 1986 dated 5.6.1990. The said E.P. was allowed vide impugned order dated 31.1.2006. The learned counsel appearing for respondent-management submits that though the writ petition filed by the management i.e. W.P.No.16460 of 1990 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.3.2001, on a petition filed for taking up the matter as ‘for being mentioned’ case, this Court passed the following order on 22.10.2002. “The writ petition filed by the petitioner-management was dismissed on 13.3.2001. In view of dismissal of writ petition, petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.14816 of 2002 for posting the matter ‘for being mentioned’, as the matter was settled out of Court. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal of writ petition. In view of settlement of the matter out of Court under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of settlement”. The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the above order passed by this Court on 22.12.2002 has attained finality. After three years thereafter, respondent-workman sent a legal notice dated 26.4.2005 seeking implementation of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.14 of 1986 dated 5.6.1990 and the management gave a suitable reply on 10.5.2005, wherein all the particulars including settlement under Section 18(1) and as to payment of amount etc., and the disposal of writ petition in terms of settlement are all indicated. In spite of the same, workman with a dishonest intention has filed the present E.P., which was allowed by the Labour Court. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondent-workman strenuously contended that the settlement entered into between the parties under Section 18(1) of I.D. Act must be in consonance with Rule 60(4) of A.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. Since the settlement entered into between the parties on 26.12.1997 does not satisfy the requirements of law and it was not made in the presence of the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore such settlement could not have been taken into consideration. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Since the settlement under Section 18(1) of I.D. Act was not properly done and the second order passed by this Court ‘on being mentioned’ recording settlement without recalling the first order was itself not proper. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the settlement entered into between the parties under Section 18(1) of I.D. Act is not proper and further the Labour Court also entertained a doubt whether such an amount was paid and even if it is paid, the same would have paid as wages under Section 17-B of I.D. Act and not otherwise. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the settlement dated 26.12.1997 under Section 18(1) of I.D. Act was signed by both the parties and a copy of the same was also marked to the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that it has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 60(4) of A.P. Industrial Disputes Rules. The facts as to settlement entered into between the parties and receiving an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- in terms of the said settlement are not in dispute. Be that as it may, once this Court has disposed of the writ petition, as noticed above, stating that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement, it must be deemed that the order passed earlier on 13.3.2001 is non-est in the eye of law and the subsequent order dated 22.10.2002 alone governs the field. If the respondent-workman is aggrieved by the said order, he should have filed Writ Appeal and worked out his remedies, wherein he can challenge the binding nature of settlement made between the parties under Section 18(1) of I.D. Act, if it suffers with any deficiency under the law. This was not done. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the workman has filed the present E.P. with a dishonest intention, which is nothing but a speculative one. The Labour Court ought not to have disposed of the matter in such a casual manner without considering the pros and cons. There was no cause of action for filing the E.P. and entertaining of E.P. itself is without jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 16.8.2010 DA