D.RAVI vs THE LOK ADALAT-II
- Court
- Madras High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 24.08.2026
Pronounced on : 03.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
WA No. 469 of 2020
AND
WA No. 875 of 2021, WA No. 2545 of 2021,
WA No. 472 of 2020, WA No. 471 of 2020
D.Ravi
(Employee No.225)
S/o.M.Durai,
No.1/1A, Gejaraj Mudaliar Back St.,
Tharapadvedu, Katpadi Po.,
Vellore District -634 007.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Lok Adalat-II
Organised by High Court-Legal Services
Committee on Wednesday 17th June 2015
Under Sec.19 of Legal Services Auth. Act
1987
(R1 Is Deleted, Vide Order Of Court Dated
07/12/2021 made In WA.Nos.2545, 868, 872,
875, 877, 878, 2559, 2562, 874, 2546, 2555
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
And 2556 Of 2021 And 478, 479, 471, 472,
475, 476, 469 And 470 Of 2020 And
CMP.Nos.5123, 5104, 5111, 5112 And 5120
Of 2021 (PUJ & SSKJ)
2. The Presiding Officer
Principal Labour Court, Chennai-600 104.
3. The Management of Bharat
Technologies Auto Components Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Regd. Off Unit No.708 Beta Wing,
7th floor, Raheja Towers,
177, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
4. Hosur Bharat Technologies Auto
Components Employees Union
(regd.No.5/kri)
Rep By Its Secretary,
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109,
Krishnagiri District.
5. Mr.G.Mukesh
President, Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees Union
(regd.No.5/kri) No.3, Kamaraj Colony,
3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109,
Krishnagiri District.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
6. Mr.A.K.Udayakumar
Secretary,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components Employees
Union (regd No.5/kri),
3/98, Udayagiri, Navathi Road,
Hcf Post, Hosur 635110.
7. Mr.R.Ramakrishnan
Treasurer,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri),
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 875 of 2021
M.Sadasivam
S/o Meiyyan,
Maravamadurai Post,
Pon Amaravathi Tk,
Thirukokarnam Via, Pudukottai District,
Pin code 622 002
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Lok Adalat -II
Organized By High Court Legal Services
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
Committee On Wednesday The 17th Day
of June 2015, Under Section 19 Of The
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.
R1 Is Deleted, Vide Order Of Court
Dated 07/12/2021 made In WA.Nos.2545,
868, 872, 875, 877, 878, 2559, 2562, 874,
2546, 2555 And 2556 Of 2021 And 478,
479, 471, 472, 475, 476, 469 And 470 Of
2020 And CMP.Nos.5123, 5104, 5111,
5112 And 5120 Of 2021 (PUJ & SSKJ)
2. The Presiding Officer
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai 600104.
3. The Management Of
Bharat Technologies Auto Components
Ltd, Rep By Its Managing Director,
Regd Office Unit No.708, Beta Wing,
7th Floor, Raheja Towers,
177 Anna Salai, Ch 02.
4. Hosur Bharat Technologies Auto
Components Employees Union (regd
No.5/kri)
Rep By Its Secretary,
No.3 Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109
Krishnagiri District.
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
5. Mr.G.Mukesh
President,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components Employees Union
(regd No.5/kri)
No.3 Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109 Krishnagiri Dist.
6. Mr.A.K.Udayakumar
Secretary,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components Employees Union
(regd No.5/kri)
3/98, Udayagiri, Navathi Road,
Hcf Post, Hosur 635110.
7. Mr.R.Ramakrishnan
Treasurer,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components Employees
Union (regd No.5/kri)
No.3 Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 2545 of 2021
M.Thirupathi
(employee No.094),
S/o.Murugan,
Avalnaickenpatti Amman Vattam,
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
Kakangarai Post,
Thirupattur Taluk,
Vellore District 635 654.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Lok Adalat-II
Organized By High Court Legal Services
Committee, On Wednesday The 17th Day
Of June 2015, Under Section 19 Of The
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
(R1 Is Deleted, Vide Order Of Court
Dated 07/12/2021 made In WA.Nos.2545,
868, 872, 875, 877, 878, 2559, 2562, 874,
2546, 2555 And 2556 Of 2021 And 478,
479, 471, 472, 475, 476, 469 And 470 Of
2020 And CMP.Nos.5123, 5104, 5111,
5112 And 5120 Of 2021 ((PUJ & SSKJ))
2. The Presiding Officer
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai 600 104.
3. The Management Of Bharat Technologies
Auto Components Ltd.,
Rep. By Its Managing Director,
Regd. Office, Unit No.708, Beta Wing,
7th Floor, Raheja Towers,
177 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
4. Hosur Bharat Technologies Auto
Components,
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
Employees Union(regd.No.5/kri)
Rep. By Its Secretary,
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District.
5. Mr.G.Mukesh
President,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri)
Rep. By Its Secretary,
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District.
6. Mr.A.K.Udayakumar
Secretary,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri)
Rep. By Its Secretary,
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District.
7. R.Ramakrishnan
Treasurer,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri)
Rep. By Its Secretary,
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 472 of 2020
C.Chandiragiri
S/o. Chinnasamy,
(Old Emp.No.124, New Emp.No.055),
Seeriyampatti Village, Seeriyampatti Post,
Palacode Tk,
Dharamapuri Dist.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Lok Adalat-II
Organised by High Court-Legal Services
Committee on Wednesday 17th June 2015
Under Sec.19 of the Legal Services Auth.
Act 1987
(R1 Is Deleted, Vide Order Of Court
Dated 07/12/2021 made In WA.Nos.2545,
868, 872, 875, 877, 878, 2559, 2562, 874,
2546, 2555 And 2556 Of 2021 And 478,
479, 471, 472, 475, 476, 469 And 470 Of
2020 And CMP.Nos.5123, 5104, 5111,
5112 And 5120 Of 2021 (PUJ & SSKJ)
2. The Presiding Officer
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai-600 104.
3. The Management of Bharat
Technologies Auto Components Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
Regd.Off Unit No.708 Beta Wing,
7th floor, Raheja Towers,
177, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
4. Hosur Bharat Technologies Auto
Components
Employees Union (regd.No.5/kri)
Rep By Its Secretary,
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
5. Mr.G.Mukesh
President,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri)
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
6. Mr.A.K.Udayakumar
Secretary,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components Employees
Union (regd No.5/kri),
3/98, Udayagiri, Navathi Road,
Hcf Post,
Hosur 635110.
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
7. Mr.R.Ramakrishnan
Treasurer,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri),
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 471 of 2020
M.Thalavai Mandhiramurthy
S/o. Maharajan,
(Old Emp No.093, New Emp No.054),
No.Lig, Old Hudco,
Thangam Nursing Home Back Side,
Krishnagiri District, Hosur 635109.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Lok Adalat-II
Organised by High Court-Legal Services
Committee on Wednesday 17th June 2015
Under Sec.19 of the Legal Services Auth.
Act 1987
(R1 Is Deleted, Vide Order Of Court
Dated 07/12/2021 made In WA.Nos.2545,
868, 872, 875, 877, 878, 2559, 2562, 874,
2546, 2555 And 2556 Of 2021 And 478,
479, 471, 472, 475, 476, 469 And 470 Of
2020 And CMP.Nos.5123, 5104, 5111,
5112 And 5120 Of 2021 (PUJ & SSKJ)
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
2. The Presiding Officer
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai-600 104.
3. The Management of Bharat
Technologies Auto Components Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Regd.Off Unit No.708 Beta Wing,
7 th floor, Raheja Towers,
177, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
4. Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components
Employees Union (regd.No.5/kri)
Rep By Its Secretary,
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
5. Mr.G.Mukesh
President,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri)
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
6. Mr.A.K.Udayakumar
Secretary,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
Auto Components Employees
Union (regd No.5/kri),
3/98, Udayagiri, Navathi Road,
Hcf Post, Hosur 635110.
7. Mr.R.Ramakrishnan
Treasurer,
Hosur Bharat Technologies
Auto Components, Employees
Union (regd.No.5/kri),
No.3, Kamaraj Colony, 3rd Cross,
Hosur 635109, Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 469 of 2020
Prayer: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order
dated 23.10.2019 made in WP No.11218 of 2017 and allow the above Writ Appeal.
WA No. 875 of 2021
Prayer: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order
dated 23.10.2019 made in WP No.11206 of 2017 and allow the above Writ Appeal.
WA No. 2545 of 2021
Prayer: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order
dated 23.10.2019 made in W.P.No.11208 of 2017.
WA No. 472 of 2020
Prayer: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order
dated 23.10.2019 made in W.P.No.11220 of 2017 and allow the above Writ Appeal.
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
WA No. 471 of 2020
Prayer: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order
dated 23.10.2019 made in W.P No.11223 of 2017 and allow the above Writ Appeal.
For Appellant(s): Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
in all cases
For Respondent(s): M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.A. Saravanan for R3 in all cases
No Appearance for R4 to R7
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by E.Manoharan J .)
Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.
Nos.11218, 11206, 11208, 11220 & 11223 of 2017 dated 23.10.2019, the above
Appeals have been preferred by the Workmen, who are the former employees of the
Third Respondent herein/ the Management of the Bharat Technologies Auto
Components Limited, [For brevity, hereinafter referred to as “BTACL”], whereby
the Appellants seek to declare that the Award dated 17.06.2015 passed by the Lok
Adalat II (the First Respondent herein) would not bind on them and consequently,
to restore the industrial disputes in I.D.No.9 of 2007 and I.D.No.279 of 2009 and
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
also the Claim Petitions in C.P.No.445 of 2013 and C.P.No.446 of 2013 on the file
of the second respondent herein (i.e.) the Principal Labour Court, Chennai insofar as
the appellants herein are concerned.
2. The brief facts surrounding the case at hand is as follows:
2.1. The Third Respondent Company / BTACL had a factory, manufacturing
various kinds of auto components for two wheelers and was acting as an ancillary
unit for TVS Motor Co. Ltd., (Formerly called as TVS Suzuki Ltd.,) which was the
manufacturer of two wheelers. In the Third Respondent Company, about 160
permanent workers were employed in the factory apart from 50 contract labourers
and trainees. The workers of the Third Respondent Company had started a Union
under the name of BTACL Employees Krishnagiri District Moopanar Trade Union
Congress [KDMTUC] and formation of the Union was communicated to the Third
Respondent Management vide letter dated 02.02.2005. In the year 2005, the Hosur
Unit run by the Third Respondent was taken over by the Management of Sundaram
Auto Components Ltd., with a condition that they would be taking over the unit
without the employees.
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
2.2. It is seen that thereafter the Third Respondent Management had
terminated the services of the 37 Workmen in the Hosur Unit and then, on
administrative grounds, transferred 12 Workmen to their Maraimalai Nagar Unit.
The 37 Workmen were paid compensation as per Section 25FF of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “1947 Act”]. It is to noted that as per
the statement of the Third Respondent before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai,
the services of the 12 workmen were also terminated on 06.10.2005.
2.3. In light of the above issues/disputes that had risen, the Fourth
Respondent Union on behalf of the Appellants/ Workmen filed the industrial
disputes in I.D.No.279 of 2009 (37 workmen) and I.D.No.9 of 2007 (12 workmen)
before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. The Principal Labour Court, Chennai /
second respondent herein while hearing both the industrial disputes together, had
framed the following points for consideration:
1.Whether the termination of services of 37 workers is justified? If not,
to what relief they are entitled?
2.Whether the transfer of 12 workmen is justified? If not, to what relief
these workers are entitled?
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
3.Whether the non-employment of 12 workers due to the refusal of the
management to provide work with effect from 06.10.2005 is justified?
If not, to what relief the workers are entitled?
2.4. By a Common Award dated 27.06.2013, the Principal Labour Court,
Chennai / the Second Respondent herein held that the termination of the services of
the 37 workmen in I.D.No.279 of 2009 and non-employment of 12 workmen in
I.D.No.9 of 2007 as unjustified and directed the Third Respondent to reinstate all the
workmen i.e., 37 in I.D.No.279 of 2009 and 12 in I.D.No.9 of 2007 with back wages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
2.5. Subsequent to the passing of the Common Award of the Principal
Labour Court, Chennai, the Fourth Respondent Union again on behalf of the above-
mentioned workmen, filed the Claim Petitions in C.P.No.445 of 2013 in I.D No.9 of
2007 and in C.P.No.446 of 2013 in I.D.No.279 of 2009 before the learned Principal
Labour Court, Chennai.
2.6. From the narration of facts, it is seen that it was the Fourth Respondent
Union which has espouse the cause of the Appellants/Workmen before the Labour
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
Court. There was no objection from the workmen to be represented by the Fourth
Respondent Union.
2.7. In the year 2014, the Third Respondent Management had also filed the
Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.12191 & 12192 of 2014 challenging the Common Award
passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai dated 27.06.2013.
2.8. It is seen that while the above petitions filed against the Impugned
Award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.Nos.9 of 2007 and 279
of 2009 were pending, a 18(1) Settlement was signed between the parties i.e.,
between the Third Respondent Management of BTACL and the Fourth Respondent
Union. A perusal of the 18(1) Settlement would show that the agreement was signed
on 11.06.2015 between the Third Respondent Management and the Fourth
Respondent Union which represented the 12 workmen in I.D.No.9 of 2007 and 37
workmen in I.D.No.279 of 2009. In the Settlement, it was agreed that all the
workmen will receive the full and final settlement of the compensation to the tune
of Rs.3 Lakhs each. Based on the same, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and
the Award was passed on 17.06.2015 under Section 21 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987, whereby they took on record the above Settlement dated
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
11.06.2015 and the Common Award of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai dated
27.06.2013 was substituted by the 18(1) Settlement and filed a joint memo of
compromise to that effect and in view of the same, the Writ Petitions filed in
W.P.Nos.12191 and 12192 of 2014 were disposed of accordingly.
2.9. Subsequently, in the year 2016, 20 workmen had addressed a letter to
the Third Respondent stating that they have not received the full and final settlement
and that they have no interest and are unwilling to the agreement arrived under 18(1)
Settlement and therefore, aggrieved over the same, 20 workmen had sought for
reinstatement with benefits as per the Principal Labour Court Common Award
mentioned above.
2.10. Thereafter, the above mentioned 20 workmen had filed the Writ
Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.11205 to 11224 of 2017 to declare the aforesaid Lok Adalat
Award dated 17.06.2015 is not binding on them and consequently to restore the
I.D.No.9 of 2007 and I.D.No.279 of 2009 dated 27.06.2013 and also C.P.Nos.445
and 446 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai insofar the
appellants are concerned. The above said Writ Petitions were dismissed by the
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
learned Single Judge as devoid as merits by way of a common order dated
23.10.2019.
2.11. Aggrieved by the common order of the learned Single Judge dated
23.10.2019, the present Writ Appeals were filed by the 20 Workmen. During the
course of hearing, it has been brought to the attention of this Court that 15 out of 20
workmen had accepted Rs.8 Lakhs each as full and final settlement from the Third
Respondent and their respective Writ Appeals were closed. All that remains now are
the current five Writ Appeals before this Court filed by the remaining 5 workmen.
3. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that out of the 5 workmen, the
Appellants in W.A.No.469 of 2020, 875 of 2021 and 2545 of 2021 belong to the
category of 37 terminated workmen, who are the subject matter of I.D. No. 279 of
2009 and the Appellants in W.A.Nos.471 and 472 of 2020 belongs to 12 workmen,
who were the subject matter of the I.D.No.9 of 2007. The learned counsel appearing
for the Appellants has challenged the Lok Adalat Award dated 17.06.2015 and the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2019 on the ground that the tenure of
the office bearers of the Fourth Respondent Union had already expired at that time
of the Union entering into the Settlement with the Third Respondent Management
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
and therefore, they lacked authority to represent the Appellants. The Appellants had
also stated in their appeals that they are entitled, under the Labour Court Award, to
receive more than Rs.3 Lakhs and that they neither accepted the 18(1) Settlement
nor expressed their consent for the same and therefore, the 18(1) Settlement dated
11.06.2015 and the Lok Adalat Award dated 17.06.2015 were not binding on them.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent had
submitted that the Management had arrived at the Settlement with the registered
Union and that the workmen involved were well aware of the exercise undertaken
and in fact, many of the workmen had received the settled amount. She also went on
to submit that it was the Fourth Respondent Union that has been consistently
representing the workmen at various levels and there was no objection. Also that,
subsequently 15 workmen have received a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs each and settled their
dues with the Management and therefore in light of the same, on behalf of the Third
Respondent, it is submitted that the current Writ Appeals lack merit.
5. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and also perused the
materials placed on record.
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
6. The pertinent question that arises in this batch of Writ Appeals is that
requires to be decided by this Court are as follows:
(i) Whether 18(1) Settlement dated 11.06.2015 and the
consequent Lok Adalat Award dated 17.06.2015 are valid and
binding on the Appellants?
(ii) If not, what reliefs are the Appellants entitled to?
7. Before we decide on the above issues raised, it is necessary to keep in
mind that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation enacted to
provide a frame work to address the concerns of workmen. It also provides for a
structured resolution mechanism to resolve the industrial disputes and balance the
interest of employer and workmen. One of the key aspects of the 1947 Act is
providing a platform for settlement of industrial disputes.
8. The most relevant provisions under the 1947 Act pertaining to arriving at
a settlement, keeping in mind the facts of the case herein, are extracted below: -
Section 2(p)
“[(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation
proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner
as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to [an officer
authorised in this behalf by] the appropriate Government and the conciliation
officer;]”
And;
Section 18 . Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding
[(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman
otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on
the parties to the agreement.]
...
9. Yet another key aspect of the 1947 Act is that it promotes “collective
bargaining”, whereby a substantial group or a registered valid Union can espouse
the cause of the workmen giving significant weight and leverage to negotiate and
contest the disputes affecting the labourers, rather than the workmen being left to
defend for themselves individually. It is to be noted that in light of the same,
normally settlements arrived by the Union with the Management is given
considerable importance.
10. As seen above, under Section 18 of the 1947 Act, more specifically
18(1), it permits Settlement by an agreement to be entered between the employer
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
and the workmen. As per the Trade Unions Act, 1926, a registered Trade Union is
considered as a juristic / legal entity that can enter into contracts and also argue
before any Labour Court or Authority in its own name or on behalf of its members.
The Fourth Respondent Union being the only registered Trade Union, and the
Appellants being its Member, is therefore capable of representing its workmen
before the appropriate Forums and also can enter into a Settlement under Section
18(1) of the ID Act on behalf of its members / Workmen. In fact, in JK Jute Mill
Mazdoor Morcha Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd – (2019) 11 SCC
332 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a Trade Union can even be treated as an
operational creditor for the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
In the said Judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as follows:
“16. … Looked at from any angle, there is no doubt that a registered trade
union which is formed for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen
and their employer can maintain a petition as an operational creditor on behalf of
its members.”
Therefore, it is clear that the Fourth Respondent Union was eligible to represent the
workmen/Appellants herein before the Labour Court as well as before the Lok
Adalat for the purpose of the Industrial Dispute.
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
11. Now comes the question as to whether the Fourth Respondent Union was
authorized by the workmen of BTACL, especially the 49 workmen which includes
the 5 Appellants herein to represent them before various forums. As stated above
and upon perusal of the various pleadings and documents filed before us, it is
admitted that the Fourth Respondent Union had represented the Appellants /
Workmen not only before the Labour Court but also in the 18(1) Settlement and the
Lok Adalat proceedings. It is clear from the conduct of the workmen that they had
accepted the representation of the Fourth Respondent Union on their behalf.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to state that the Fourth Respondent Union did
represent the workmen with full knowledge and consent of the workmen before the
various forums for the purpose of addressing the industrial dispute and for its
resolution.
12. Keeping in mind the above facts and legal position, this Court is in
agreement with the order of the learned Single Judge in regard to the context that
having been registered with the Union, the Appellants cannot file a separate claim
before the Authorities stating that the Lok Adalat Award is not binding on them or
the agreement was signed without their consent. We also agree with the findings of
the learned Single Judge that once the parties to litigations as well as the respective
24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
learned counsels appearing for the parties signed the Award before the Lok Adalat,
then such award is undoubtedly binding on parties and now they cannot come out
with the Writ Petitions stating that such Award is not binding on certain members
of the Union. At this juncture it is relevant to note Section 21 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987, wherein the nature of a Lok Adalat Award is stated. Under
the said provision, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of
a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court. Every Award made
by the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no
appeal shall lie before any Court as against the Award.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T.Thomas Vs. Thomas Job reported in
2005 (6) SCC 478 has observed that the endeavour is only to seek that the disputes
are narrow down and make a final settlement so that the parties are not again defend
to any other litigation. Though the Award of the Lok Adalat is not a result of a
contest on merits, just it is a regular suit by a Court in a regular trial, is however, it
is as equal and on par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding
effect and be conclusive. Just as a decree passed on compromise cannot be
challenged in a regular appeal, the Award of the Lok Adalat, being akin to the same,
cannot be challenged by any of regular remedies available under law, including by
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenging the correctness of
the Award, on any ground. The Court has further observed that the Award of the
Lok Adalat is final, permanent which is equivalent to a decree executable and the
same is ending to the litigation among the parties. Thus, the Appellants herein
cannot challenge the Lok Adalat Award and seek to reopen the dispute at this stage
of time.
14. The Appellants have also relied on judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court
to substantiate their Appeal including Tata Chemicals Ltd., Vs. The Workmen rep.
By Chemical’s Kamdar Sangh reported in 1978 (3) SCC 42 and Indian Oxygen
Ltd., Vs. Workmen as rep. By Indian Oxygen Karamchari Union reported in 1979
(3) SCC 291 .
15. While the above-mentioned cases have dealt with the issue regarding the
Settlement under Section 18 and it is an application on a non-signatory minority
Union / workmen and their right to raise their own distinct demand, it is also
pertinent to note that the facts in the present case on hand are unique to itself and the
above judgments cannot be considered by ignoring the same.
26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise,
Calcutta Vs. Alnoori Tobacco Products and another reported in 2004 (6) SCC 186
has noted that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a
world of difference in conclusion of the case. The Appellants cannot place their
reliance on the facts and circumstances of a particular precedent without examining
the factual distinction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that e ach case
depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not
enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In
deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching
the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which
side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all
decisive.
17. Keeping in mind the above rational, it is pertinent to note that unlike the
other case referred by the appellants, there is only a single registered Union herein
and the said Union has been representing the workmen throughout before all the
Forums viz., Labour Court, 18(1) Settlement and the Lok Adalat. This fact cannot
be ignored and it makes a world of change in showing the intention of the parties
involved and therefore, it has to be given due consideration.
27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
18. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants has also relied upon the case in
Herbertsons Limited Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Others
reported in 1976 (4) SCC 736 . In the said case, the Appellant’s Counsel has relied
on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the Court has held that
settlement normally cannot be interfered with, unless or otherwise, there is mala-
fide fraud or corruption. On the other hand, it is also necessary to note that in the
said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 18 has also observed the
following:
“18. When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the
workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not
necessary that each individual worker should know the
implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is
expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a
settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal
rule.”
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Herbertsons case as stated supra has also
held that it would not be possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold
some parts good and acceptable and others bad. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
categorically remarked on the need for industrial peace and harmony and the
28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
necessity for accepting the Settlement therein. We do not find this judgment in any
way aiding the case of the Appellants herein. The volte-face and belated actions of
the Appellants cannot be permitted to unsettle and reopen the dispute that has
reached conclusion, especially, by passing of a Lok Adalat Award and the settlement
having been accepted by majority of the workmen. In light of the above, this Court
holds that the 18(1) Settlement dated 11.06.2015 and the consequent Lok Adalat
Award dated 17.06.2015 are valid and binding on the appellants. Since the first
question for determination in these Appeals have been answered in the affirmative
and against the Appellants, the second question does not merit any consideration.
20. The Appellants have raised allegations against the Fourth Respondent
Union, more specifically towards its erstwhile Office Bearers. The Learned Single
Judge in the Order dated 23.10.2019 had observed that if at all, the office bearers of
the Union have committed any irregularity or illegality, it is open to the members of
the Union to sue the Union or the Office Bearers. At this juncture, this Court feels it
relevant to refer to the provisions enacted under Trade Unions Act, 1926, more
specifically, Sections 17 and 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The relevant sections
are extracted below:
29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
17.Criminal conspiracy in trade disputes - No [office-
bearer] or member of a registered Trade Union shall be liable to
punishment under sub-section (2) of Section 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), in respect of any agreement made
between the members for the purpose of furthering any such object
of the Trade Union as is specified in Section 15, unless the
agreement is an agreement to commit an offence.
18. Immunity from civil suit in certain cases .— (1) No suit
or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any Civil Court
against any registered Trade Union or any office-bearer or
member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade
Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some
other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is in
interference with the trade, business or employment of some other
person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his
capital or of his labour as he wills.
(2) A registered Trade Union shall not be liable in any suit
or other legal proceeding in any Civil Court in respect of any
tortious act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute by an agent of the Trade Union if it is proved that such
person acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to express
instructions given by, the executive of the Trade Union.
30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
21. A perusal of the above Sections show that while they do not grant an
absolute right or immunity to the Union or its workmen for any acts done in
furtherance of resolving an industrial dispute, they do indeed offer a certain level of
protection, so long as the action taken is within the permitted limits of the law and
is for the purpose of, or in furtherance of an industrial dispute. In the case at hand, it
is seen that the office bearers of the Fourth Respondent Union had represented the
grievances / disputes of the workmen before various forums, with the knowledge of
the workmen. In fact, it is seen that the erstwhile office bearers against whom the
Appellants have raised allegations, were the ones, who had filed the Claim Petitions
before the Labour Court as early as in August 2013. Since the payment under the
18(1) Settlement was not satisfactory to the Appellants, they have now raised their
objections against the Union, more specifically, its former office bearers.
22. While the Appellants can still attempt to take action against the
individual erstwhile office bearers of the Union, this too may be tested keeping in
mind the object and scope of Section 17 of the Trade Unions Act. However, the
Fourth Respondent Union cannot be made liable, in any form, for the actions of its
members or office bearers, and that it is protected, especially since the action or steps
taken were in furtherance of resolving an industrial dispute.
31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
23. We are aware that much water has flown under the bridge at this
moment. Even assuming that if this Court had agreed with the stand of the
Appellants and declared that the Award was not binding on them, the logical next
step would have been to reopen the Writ Petitions filed by the Management i.e.,
W.P.Nos.12191 & 12192 of 2014 and not to send the workmen and Management
back to the Labour Court as prayed for by the Appellants in their Writ Petitions.
24. On the other hand, it has been brought to the knowledge of this Court by
the learned Senior Counsel for the Third Respondent Management that 15 workmen
out of the 20 workmen, who had originally filed the Writ Appeals along with the 5
Appellants herein, had received a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs as a final settlement, during the
pendency of the Writ Appeals, and consequently withdrawn their respective
Appeals. During the course of the hearing, when a suggestion was put forth as to
whether the Appellants herein would be willing to accept the settlement amount as
their peers had received pending the Writ Appeals i.e., a sum of Rs.8 lakhs, the
Appellants those who were present in the Court had informed through their counsel
that they were not willing to accept it. While this Court refrains from issuing a
direction to the Third Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs to the Appellants
32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
herein nor can this Court direct the Appellants to receive the said sum, we would
nonetheless place a suggestion to the Third Respondent Management to consider the
option of paying the above compensation to the Appellants herein and we would
advise the Appellants to reconsider their stand. This is a mere suggestion and left to
the discretion of the parties to consider the same.
25. With the above observations and reasoning, we hold that the Writ
Appeals stand dismissed as they are devoid of merits. Consequently, the 18(1)
Settlement dated 11.06.2015 and the Lok Adalat Award dated 17.06.2015 are
binding on the Appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.
(G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.)
03.09.2026
Index: Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
DP
33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai-600 104.
34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
E.MANOHARAN J.
DP
JUDGMENT MADE IN
WA No. 469 of 2020
AND
WA NO. 875 OF 2021, WA NO. 2545 OF 2021,
WA NO. 472 OF 2020, WA NO. 471 OF 2020
03.09.2026
35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:16 pm )