Industrial Settlement Binding Under Section 18(3) Cannot Be Judicially Enlarged to Include Excluded Categories of Workmen

The appellants are a contractual labor union and individual workers who were engaged by ONGC through contractors prior to 2008 but were disengaged before April 1, 2012.

An industrial dispute regarding wages and service conditions led to a settlement dated September 25, 2014, which was subsequently passed as a Tribunal award.

This award provided job security benefits specifically to workers engaged as of June 24, 2008, or January 1, 2011, who continued in service until the settlement date.

The appellants, having been disengaged before the cut-off dates, sought a direction to be included in the benefit of job security for future engagements.

A Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, holding the settlement binding.

1. Whether workers disengaged before the settlement's cut-off dates can claim preferential engagement or job security benefits based on the 2014 industrial award.

2. Whether the principles of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, apply to contractual laborers seeking re-engagement in this context.

Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates that settlements arrived at during conciliation proceedings are binding on all parties and those falling within the ambit of the dispute.

The principle that a Writ Court under Article 226 cannot rewrite the terms of a negotiated industrial settlement.

Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act applies specifically to "retrenched workmen" and cannot override express statutory settlements that have attained finality.

The court reasoned that industrial peace is achieved through collective bargaining, and a settlement reached in conciliation acquires a "special status" and "extended binding operation".

The court noted that the cut-off dates in the 2014 award were not accidental but were essential negotiated terms.

Because the appellants did not challenge the validity of the award itself, they could not ask the court to enlarge the class of beneficiaries to include those who did not meet the continuity criteria.

The Court rejected the application of Section 25H, clarifying that the appellants were contractual laborers, not retrenched workmen, and statutory finality of the settlement takes precedence.

A clause in the award requiring its incorporation into future contracts was interpreted as a mechanism for implementation for eligible workers, not a source for creating new rights for previously disengaged staff.

The Court clarified that if any appellants are engaged afresh under future contracts where settlement conditions are incorporated, they shall be entitled to benefits from the date of such fresh engagement, without any claim to continuity, back wages, or seniority.

The judgment of the Single Judge was upheld.