Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Unknown vs Government Of India To Be Represented cites

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal (C), Hyderabad And ... on 23 August, 1994

10. With the memorandum of settlement arrived at on 3.7.2010, the request for 100% DA neutralization was implemented with effect from 1.7.2008 as claimed in the Charter of Demands. By virtue of paragraph 22 of the memorandum of settlement arrived at on 3.7.2010, the unions are precluded from raising any demand for the period covered by the said memorandum of settlement, namely, for the period from W.P(C).No.2541 of 2011 -:23:- 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2013. The demand in the instant writ petition for 100% DA neutralization irrespective of any Basic Pay relates to a period prior to that, namely, the period from 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2008. The effect of a settlement arrived at under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on a pending demand, which was not taken care of by the settlement, was considered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (C) Hyderabad, 1988 Lab. I.C. 1271. It was held that the sanctity of a settlement is confined to the terms of the settlement which has been signed and sealed between the parties, that a settlement will be deemed to be a full and final settlement in regard to all the demands which have been considered in the settlement, but demands which have not been considered and which have never been the subject matter of the terms of the settlement cannot be deemed to have been foreclosed by the terms of the settlement. It was also held that demands which are inextricably linked with the terms of the settlement and which have not been pressed or which have been given up will be deemed to have been withdrawn, but demands arising independently of the terms of the settlement cannot be W.P(C).No.2541 of 2011 -:24:- deemed to have been withdrawn by virtue of a settlement arrived at between the parties. In the instant case, the memorandum of settlement arrived at on 3.7.2010 does not stipulate that the workmen have agreed to give up their claims under paragraph 5.3 of the settlement arrived at on 6.12.2005 for 100% DA neutralization irrespective of any Basic Pay as in the case of Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., for the period from 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2008. As stated earlier, it was after the trade unions submitted their Charter of Demands which led to the memorandum of settlement dated 3.7.2010, that in terms of the stipulations in paragraph 5.3 of the settlement dated 6.12.2005, the third respondent sent Ext.P6 letter dated 7.10.2008 followed by the letter dated 24.10.2008 to the second respondent requesting the second respondent to take up the matter with the Department of Public Enterprises for obtaining the necessary approval in order to enable Indian Rare Earths Ltd. to take further action in the matter. Necessarily therefore, it cannot be said that the settlement arrived at on 3.7.2010 foreclosed the claims of the workmen for benefits under paragraph 5.3 of the settlement arrived at on 6.12.2005. I therefore, find no merit in the W.P(C).No.2541 of 2011 -:25:- contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the workmen are precluded from raising a claim for 100% DA neutralization irrespective of any Basic Pay for the period from 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2008.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1