IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 17137 of 2005 Between: M/s.Sree Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited, Gondiparla (post), Kurnool District rep., by its Manager, 8-3-960/11, Srinagar Colony Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.Ramachandra Reddy, s/o A.V.Somi Reddy, T.S.No.14, Gondiparla Post, Vasanthnagar, Kurnool. 2 P.Subramanyam, s/o P.Chennaiah, H.No.15/69, Khadakpura Kurnool. 3 G.K.Nageswara Rao, s/o G.H.Krishna Murthy, H.No.53-1, Fort, Madhava Street, Kurnool. 4 K.Nagaraju Gupta, s/o K.Krishna Murthy Gupta, H.No.28-95, Peta, Kurnool. 5 S.Vijaya Chandra, s/o late S.Ramaiah, D.No.7/60-E, R.S.Road, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. 6 B.V.Narayana, s/o late B.Venkateswarlu, T.S.168, Gondiparla Post, Vasanthnagar, Kurnool. 7 E.Christopher, s/o E.Yesudas, T.S.No.62, Gondiparla Post, Vasanthnagar, Kurnool. 8 V.Sivashankaraiah, s/o V.Gopala Swamy, H.No.38/33, Minchin Street, Kurnool. 9 T.Jangam Reddy, s/o T.P.Somi Reddy, H.No.52120-A, Khanderi Street, Kurnool. 10 K.Kasi Viswanatha Rao, s/o K.Kesava rao, T.S.78, Gondiparla (P), Vasantnagar, Kurnool. 11 D.Vijaya Kumar, s/o D.Narasinga Rao, H.No.64/156, C.S.Nagappa Street, Kurnool. 12 P.Narasimha Murthy, s/o B.Gururaja Char, H.No.56/2, Fort, Kurnool. 13 N.Siva Shanakara Prasad, s/o N.Venkataramaiah, H.No.57/18, B3, Fort, Kurnool. 14 K.Ramesh Gupta, s/o K.Mallikarjuna, H.No.43/94, N.R.Peta, Kurnool. 15 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling the records relating to the order passed in M.P.No.417/2002 dated 05-03-2004, on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Anantapur and quash the same in the interest of the justice and equity and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17137 OF 2005 ORDER : This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 5.3.2004 in M.P.No.417 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. The respondents 1 to 14 herein working with the writ petitioner company filed the said M.P.No.417 of 2002 under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to compute the amounts due to them and for a direction to the writ petitioner to pay the same. Similar petitions being M.P.No.16 of 2000 and etc., were filed by other workmen under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking similar relief. All the said petitions were heard together and allowed by a Common Order dated 5.3.2004 by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner company filed W.P.No.20994 of 2005 so far as the order in M.P.No.410 of 2002 is concerned and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 6.11.2007 thereby setting aside the order of the Labour Court. Having regard to the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for. Though the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as against the order in W.P.No.20994 of 2005 some of the respondents preferred a Writ Appeal, it is a matter of record that the said W.A.No.762 of 2009 was dismissed by a Division Bench by Judgment dated 15.06.2009. Even on merits the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the settlement entered into between the petitioner and the unions on 6.10.2005 particularly the undertaking given by the workmen the impugned order dated 5.3.2004 cannot be allowed to continue. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the settlement dated 6.10.2005 is not binding since the workmen were coerced and threatened to agree to the terms and conditions under the said settlement and particularly since the same had taken place in the absence of the Conciliation Officer as required under Section 80 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is to be noticed that by the date of the impugned order, the proceedings were pending before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, ‘AAIFR’). Subsequently as per the terms of the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction the petitioner company had entered into an agreement of settlement with the unions on 6.10.2005. In terms of the said agreement, all the eligible workmen were taken back in a phased manner from May, 2006 to 2007 and during this period all the workmen were paid 50% of their salaries from the date of reopening of the mill till they were taken back into service as per Clause 7(b) of the Settlement dated 6.10.2005. Under the said settlement, the respondents-workmen had undertaken that they shall abide by the terms and conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Settlement and that they would withdraw all the cases filed against the Management which were pending before the Labour Court or any other Forum. Though the factum of settlement is not in dispute, it is contended before this Court on behalf of the respondents that the undertaking was not a voluntary act on the part of the workmen and even the settlement was not in accordance with law. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, if aggrieved, the workmen / respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps for a declaration that the settlement dated 6.10.2005 is not binding on them. Since the petitioners did not choose to do so, the settlement stands good as on today and consequently the workmen/respondents are bound by the undertaking given by them in the Settlement dated 6.10.2005. In the circumstances, the respondents cannot have the benefit of the impugned order dated 5.3.2004 in M.P.No.417 of 2002. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.3.2004 to the extent of M.P.No.417 of 2002 is hereby set aside. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 14.07.2009 gbs