Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ appeal filed by M. Arumugam, a former conductor with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, against the order of a Single Judge dismissing his writ petition. The appellant had been terminated from service in 2000 following disciplinary proceedings for misbehaving with a passenger. Aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute (I.D.OP.No.43 of 2003) before the Labour Court, Madurai. While the dispute was pending, his union entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the management, dated 14.03.2007. Under the settlement, the appellant was reinstated as a fresh entrant and, in compliance, he withdrew the pending industrial dispute. He continued in service for nearly ten years, superannuating on 16.01.2017. In 2013, six years after the settlement, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the 2007 settlement as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of his constitutional rights, alleging that the settlement was forced due to economic duress and that he had to sacrifice his past 25 years of service. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 21.12.2021 on the ground that the appellant had voluntarily accepted the settlement, got fresh appointment, withdrew his labour case, and enjoyed the benefits; challenging it after a lapse of six years was not maintainable. The appellant appealed, contending that the settlement was a result of victimization for trade union activities and participation in a general strike, and that the punishment of termination was disproportionate. He argued that delay alone should not defeat a meritorious claim. The Division Bench, after hearing both sides, upheld the Single Judge’s order. It held that the appellant had not only accepted the settlement but had also withdrawn the pending labour dispute and served for about ten years thereafter. The court observed that after availing the benefits of the settlement for a substantial period, the appellant could not be permitted to turn around and challenge its validity. The reasons advanced for filing the writ petition after such a long delay were found unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Settlement Under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Binding Nature and Challenge - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 18(1) - The appellant, a conductor, was terminated for misconduct and preferred a labour dispute. Pending the dispute, the union entered a settlement under Section 18(1) with terms including fresh appointment and withdrawal of the pending case. The appellant accepted the appointment, served for about 10 years and withdrew the labour dispute. After six years, he filed a writ petition challenging the settlement as arbitrary and forced. The court held that having voluntarily accepted the settlement and acted upon it, the challenge was not maintainable, and the delay of six years was also fatal. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the Section 18(1) settlement after 6 years and after the petitioner had accepted fresh appointment and withdrawn labour court proceedings is maintainable
Final Decision
The writ appeal was dismissed. No costs. The court upheld the Single Judge's finding that after voluntarily accepting the settlement and acting upon it for years, the challenge to the settlement was not maintainable, and the delay of six years was fatal.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Settlement under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is binding on parties
- a party cannot challenge the settlement after enjoying its benefits
- delay and laches in challenging a settlement
- writ of declaration not maintainable after acceptance of settlement terms
