1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1901 OF 2000 ... Abhay Maheshwari ...Petitioner v/s Pawan Hans Ltd. ...Respondent ... Mr.Satendra Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr.Abhay Kulkarni for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 14 th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent for payment of the amount which according to the Petitioner is due to him. The Petitioner was appointed as a trainee pilot by the Respondent by order dated 7 th December, 1988. After completion of the training period he was 2 appointed on regular basis in the year 1990. By letter dated 28-2-1995 the Petitioner resigned his job with effect from 1-3-1995. Thereafter, it appears there was a pay revision effected by the Respondent on 31-12-1996. There was also a settlement reached between the Respondent and the Pawan Hans Engineer s Guild dated 23-2-1996 for the revision in the allowances. 2. The Petitioner was claiming that he is entitled to revised pay as also revised allowances and therefore, according to the Petitioner he was entitled to an amount of Rs.1,88,722/- from the Respondent. According to the Respondent, however, the Petitioner was entitled to revised pay, but not revised allowances. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner was entitled to Rs.57,471.79 as revised pay after making permissible 3 deductions from that amount, according to the Respondent, and amount of Rs.50,474/- was recoverable from the Petitioner. This included the amount of Rs.32,725/- which was the amount of allowance paid on ad-hoc basis to the Petitioner. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties that the Petitioner was entitled to revise scale of pay from 1-1-1992 till the date of his resignation. The Petitioner disputed his liability to pay back the amount of Rs.32,725/-. According to him this amount was paid to him as allowance during the period he was on duty and therefore this amount cannot be deducted. In our opinion, even assuming that the amount of Rs.32,725/- is not liable to be refunded by the Petitioner still the amount payable to the Petitioner on account of pay revision comes to Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. So far as the claim of the Petitioner that he is 4 entitled to allowance at the revised rate is concerned, in our opinion, the claim of the Petitioner is not well founded. The rate of allowance was revised not because of any policy decision of the Respondent, but because of the settlement reached between the Guild and the Respondent. The date of settlement is 23-2-1996. On that date admittedly the Petitioner was not in service of the Respondent and therefore, not a member of the Guild. When trade-union enters into the settlement with the employer that settlement binds the employer and the employee who are members of the trade-union, unless the settlement provided to the contrary. The Petitioner was not the member of the trade-union, which entered into the settlement as on 23-2-1996. Therefore, settlement by its own force will not cover the case of the Petitioner. Clause (3) of the 5 settlement in terms lays down that This settlement shall apply to all Aircraft Maintenance Engineers who are regular employees of the Company. Admittedly, on the date of the settlement i.e. On 23-2-1996 the Petitioner was not a regular employee of the company. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the pay revision circular dated 31-12-1996 also states that it applies to employees who are on regular role of the company. But still the benefits of that circular was given to the Petitioner. In our opinion, the revision of pay scale was brought about because of the policy decision of the Respondent, the Respondent could have on its own decided the extent of benefits even to the persons who were not actually on role on the date of the circular dated 31-12-1996. The revision in allowances was not brought about by any decision of the 6 Respondent, but because of the settlement between the Guild and the Respondent and therefore, in our opinion, the Respondent was justified in claiming that the benefit of revised allowance was not applicable to the Petitioner. Thus, we do not find that the Petitioner was entitled to claim allowance at the revised rate from the Respondent. If the matter is seen from this point of view, the Petitioner becomes entitled to receive an amount of about Rs.8000/-. This amount the Corporation was not willing to pay to the Petitioner because the Corporation was claiming refund of the amount of Rs.32,725/- from the Petitioner. It was also claiming an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the Petitioner, because the Petitioner, according to the Respondent, had resigned without completing the bond period. However, at the hearing of the Petition an offer was made on behalf of 7 the Corporation that without prejudice to their rights and contentions the Respondent is willing to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- to the Petitioner in full and final settlement of his claim. This offer was not accepted by the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i)The Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.7,558/- within a period of four weeks from today; (ii) However, in case the Petitioner communicated to the Respondent within a period of two weeks that he is willing to accept the amount of Rs.35,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim, the 8 Respondent shall pay that amount to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of his communication. (iii) Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)