THE MANAGING DIRECTOR v. SRI. C.S.RAJENDRAN PILLAI PRASANTHI

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 TThe challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P2 orders passedby the Labour Court, Kollam in claim petitions filed by the workmenconcerned, invoking the power of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act and claiming the arrears of pay revisionbenefits effected by bilateral settlement entered into between themanagement and the unions. The Labour Court by these orders allowedthe claim and the KSRTC, the Management, has filed these writ petitionschallenging the aforesaid orders.

Although the liability for payment and the quantification ofthe 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 tobe in exercise of its powers under Section 34 of the RTC Act and directingto defer payment awaiting better times, which might never come.

However, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Ext.P3 order, thepetitioner 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 themanagement and the workmen under the provisions of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947. The settlement entered into under the IndustrialDisputes Act is binding on the workmen and the management, and itsviolation is penal in nature. The obligation under such a bindingsettlement cannot be got diluted or deferred by invoking Section 34 ofthe RTC Act, and therefore, in my view, Section 34 cannot have anyapplication when the obligations under the Industrial Settlement aresought to be enforced. If that be so, Ext.P3 cannot be of any assistanceto the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 orders passed by the Labour Courtexercising 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 notrelied on before the Labour Court. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed.ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGERp