IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2338 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------ CP.20/2008 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM ................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANNATHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY LAW OFFICER SRI. RANJITH JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SRI. C.S.RAJENDRAN PILLAI PRASANTHI, THALACHIRA PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2339 OF 2009 WPC NO. 2340 OF 2009 WPC NO. 2348 OF 2009 WPC NO. 2361 OF 2009 & WPC NO.2393 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NOs. 2338, 2339, 2340, 2348, 2361 & 2393 OF 2009 ==================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P2 orders passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in claim petitions filed by the workmen concerned, invoking the power of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and claiming the arrears of pay revision benefits effected by bilateral settlement entered into between the management and the unions. The Labour Court by these orders allowed the claim and the KSRTC, the Management, has filed these writ petitions challenging the aforesaid orders. 2. Although the liability for payment and the quantification of the dues is not in dispute, the contention that is now raised is relying on Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the State Government purporting to be in exercise of its powers under Section 34 of the RTC Act and directing to defer payment awaiting better times, which might never come. 3. However, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Ext.P3 order, the petitioner is exonerated of its liability to make payment of the amounts WPC 2338, 2339, 2340, 2348, 2361 & 2393/09 :2 : which are payable in terms of the settlement entered into between the management and the workmen under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement entered into under the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on the workmen and the management, and its violation is penal in nature. The obligation under such a binding settlement cannot be got diluted or deferred by invoking Section 34 of the RTC Act, and therefore, in my view, Section 34 cannot have any application when the obligations under the Industrial Settlement are sought to be enforced. If that be so, Ext.P3 cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 orders passed by the Labour Court exercising its powers under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, a reading of Ext.P2 orders show that Ext.P3 now relied on was not relied on before the Labour Court. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp