Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 13.09.2010 in Ref.No.49/1994 on the file of the Principal Labour Court at Bengaluru.

2. In terms of the said award, the petitioner/employer is directed to reinstate five workmen-respondents No.1 to 5 with backwages, continuity of service and consequential benefits. The Court also held that amount paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947') has to be adjusted towards the backwages. Hence, the employer is before this Court.

10. It is the contention that the terms of the settlement were signed under an impression that workmen are being paid Section 17B wages under the Act, 1947 in terms of the interim order granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.26592/2002.

11. This Court had directed the petitioner to produce the records if any, to show that, what is paid under the alleged settlement is not Section 17B wages, but the amount as agreed in terms of the settlement which is other than Section 17B wages.

12. In response to the said oral direction, the documents are produced along with an application dated 04.02.2026 and these records would indicate that Section 17B wages are paid to the respondents every month through demand draft and same was sent through registered post. The payment of this amount is not disputed by the respondents. The documents relating to the alleged settlement marked at Exhibits-M41 to M45 would reveal the payment of amount as agreed in the settlement. Admittedly, said amount is higher than what is paid under Section 17B.

NC: 2026:KHC:12651 HC-KAR

18. It is an admitted factual position before this Court now that, the signatures are that of the respondents. Even the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the signatures are that of respondents. That being the position, the Court is of the view that, it was not open for the Labour Court to expand the scope of inquiry.

19. The contention of the respondents that, what is paid under the agreement marked at Exhibits-M41 to 45 is only Section 17B wages, cannot be accepted. The reason is, there are records to indicate that Section 17B wages are paid to the respondents till the date of the settlement and after the settlement in the year 2004, Section 17B wages are stopped. The respondents/workmen have not complained before this Court to say that Section 17B wages are not paid despite the Court order. This would also indicate that the settlements have taken place in the year 2004. Thus, the contention that the settlements are on account of fraud, misrepresentation cannot be accepted.