1 903-13-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3696 OF 2006 Genubhau D. Kale .. Applicant. V/s. Navbharat Builders .. Respondent. Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, for the Applicant. Mrs. Anjali S. Ranade, for the Respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This application is preferred by Original Respondent/employee under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for directions to Respondent to pay the Applicant 50% back wages with effect from 14th June, 1997 as per the impugned award/order dated 1st September, 2005. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant submits that the First Labour Court, Pune by its 2 903-13-10.sxw order dated 1st September, 2005 in reference (IDA) No.417 of 1997, directed Respondent/Employer to reinstate the applicant in service with continuity with effect from 14th June, 1997 and also directed to pay 50% of back wages with effect from 14th June, 1997. The Applicant is, therefore, entitled for back wages as directed by First Labour Court, Pune and benefit under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent has vehemently opposed the Civil Application. He submits that Applicants are members of Navbharat Builders Employees Union which has filed complaint (ULP) No.288 of 1993 and 164 of 1993, before the Hon’ble Industrial Court, Pune. During pendency of these proceedings, parties arrived at settlement in 1993 itself. As per the settlement terms, Union agreed that the workmen who work for more than five years, will accept 21% of salary towards full and final settlement and other terms and conditions. Pursuant to the said settlement, applicant has resigned on 4th October, 1993 and accepted agreed compensation as per settlement of 1993. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent further submitted that other workers also filed reference before Industrial Court being reference no.310 of 1999, 312 of 1999, etc. Those references were 3 903-13-10.sxw dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Third Labour Court, Pune by order dated 15th September, 2005. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent mainly relied upon on paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “Para-18- It is well settled law that if the workmen has been appointed for completion of the specific project or scheme and after its due completion they cannot claim for reinstatement, back wages or continuity of service at all. Their employment automatically came to an end as soon as the work of the project or scheme is over. The First Party No.1 in this regard specifically stated that after obtaining contract of construction of dam they have completed 97% of work in the year 1993. This fact has been admitted by the Second Party namely Shri Bhagwan Kale in his cross examination in page No.3. It means almost work of construction of dam was over, project was almost completed and therefore even if the Second Parties were terminated by the First Party than cannot be said to be retrenchment as contemplated u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. Therefore, the question of payment of retrenchment compensation, notice pay etc. does not arise.” “Para-19- It is admitted fact that Second Party workmen and other workmen formed the union namely Navbharat Builders Employees Union and specifically filed Complaint (ULP) No.288/93 and 164/93 before Hon’ble Industrial Court, Pune. While pendency of this proceedings the parties to the complaint arrived at settlement in the year 1993 itself.” 4 903-13-10.sxw “Para – 20- One of the condition of the settlement is that the Union will withdraw both the complaints. The Union also agreed that the workmen worked for more than 5 years, they will be paid 21% of salary towards full and final settlement. The workmen who worked for more than five years but during intervention they will be paid 17% salary towards full and final settlement. The workmen who worked below five years they will be paid 13% salary towards full and final settlement. The workmen who were given break will be paid 15 days payment, and after their payment they will tender the resignation voluntarily. Considering these terms and conditions of the settlement it appears from the record that the workmen by obtaining the dues as per the settlement some of them tendered resignation and some of them voluntarily left the service.” 4 It is crystal clear from the paragraph nos. 18, 19 and 20 that pursuant to the settlement of 1993, applicant resigned and accepted compensation. Therefore, in the present application, applicant is not entitled for any order, directing Respondent to pay salary under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and 50% back wages with effect from 14th June, 1997. 5 Civil Application No.13 of 2010 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.)