DBSAW No.470/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R Ram Bhawan Vs. Judge Labour Court & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.470/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2285/2005. Date of order:- March 13, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Suresh Kashyap for the appellant. ***** BY THE COURT:- Heard. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18/11/2005 whereby the writ petition of the appellant filed against the order of the Labour Court, Jaipur dated 21/4/2003 has been dismissed. By that order, learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for which the appellant had claimed payment for a sum of Rs.1,83,464/- pursuant to the award passed in his favour on 4/4/1978. Learned Labour Court in its order referred to a settlement which was arrived at between the appellant-workman and the respondent-management on DBSAW No.470/2008. 2 11/4/1999. The appellant-workman in his cross- examination before the labour court admitted having signed the statement as also declaration form and also his photographs affixed on the settlement which was duly attested by the Notary Public. During the settlement, appellant agreed to receive Rs.1,09,153/- in full & final settlement of his claim. He admitted having received the aforesaid amount. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on consideration of all these facts. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the settlement referred to above was based on an earlier settlement which was arrived by the management with the union. The settlement which was separately arrived at between the management and the union was not brought on record of the labour court. It was argued that in view of Rule 158 of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Rules), 1957, the settlement ought to have been signed by the office bearer of the registered union on behalf of the workman and not by the workman itself. It was also argued that the settlement that has been arrived at would not be covered by Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned-order so also other material forming part of record, we find that DBSAW No.470/2008. 3 the appellant has admitted having signed the settlement and has also admitted signatures on prescribed declaration form and his photographs on the settlement. Appellant has also admitted having received the amount of Rs.1,09,153/- pursuant to such settlement. In the face of this, he cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. The settlement which is arrived at between the management and the workman otherwise than, in the course of conciliation have been given equal binding effect as against not only the management but also against the workman as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. We therefore do not find any error in the impugned-judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil