Retirement before signing does not bar annual-increment benefits under the strike settlement.

The first respondent, a Special Grade Conductor, retired from the Transport Corporation on 31 May 2022.

Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him for participating in a January 2018 strike.

A settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, signed on 24 August 2022, provided for dropping disciplinary proceedings against employees who participated in strikes between 2011 and 2021 and treating the relevant suspension and absence periods as duty.

The Corporation had deferred the respondent’s annual increment, which would otherwise have fallen due on 1 May 2022, to 1 August 2022, after his retirement.

The respondent’s writ petition challenged the rejection of his claim for the increment.

The Single Judge set aside the rejection and also directed payment of eligible fifth-review benefits.

The Corporation appealed, contending that the fifth-review direction exceeded the relief sought and that the respondent was not covered by the settlement because he retired before it was signed.

1. Whether the respondent, who retired before the 24 August 2022 settlement was signed, could claim the settlement’s benefit concerning the strike-related disciplinary proceedings and the annual increment.

2. Whether the Single Judge exceeded the scope of the writ petition by granting fifth-review benefits when the challenged rejection and consequential relief concerned the annual increment.

Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides that a settlement comes into operation on the date agreed by the parties or, if no date is agreed, on the date the settlement memorandum is signed.

The Court considered this provision in relation to the 12(3) settlement but held that its application must be assessed in light of the settlement’s purpose and terms: because the settlement addressed strike-related disciplinary proceedings for the 2011–2021 period and did not exclude employees who had retired before its signing, retirement before 24 August 2022 did not, by itself, disentitle the respondent from the relevant benefit.

The relief granted in writ proceedings must also remain within the scope of the claim and the impugned decision.

The Court rejected the Corporation’s argument that the respondent was excluded solely because he retired before the settlement was signed.

It reasoned that the settlement aimed to drop proceedings concerning strikes during the specified period and contained no exclusion for employees who had retired before 24 August 2022; the respondent was therefore entitled to the annual-increment benefit under the settlement.

However, the impugned rejection concerned the annual increment, and the consequential relief sought was confined to that increment.

The Single Judge therefore went beyond the writ petition by additionally granting fifth-review benefits.

It modified the Single Judge’s order accordingly, disposed of the writ appeal without costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.