Writ Petition Disposed of in Terms of the Parties’ Mediated Settlement.

The petitioner-management challenged the Labour Court’s award dated 3 July 2015, which directed reinstatement of the workmen/workwomen named in the claim petition.

The High Court referred the dispute to mediation. The parties reached a settlement and filed a memorandum under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

Under the settlement, the management agreed, subject to its terms, to pay ₹4,75,000 to each concerned workman/workwoman towards back wages and applicable statutory bonus; the settlement also addressed reinstatement, deceased and retired workwomen, statutory benefits, and the treatment of further claims.

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s award should be disposed of in terms of the parties’ mediated settlement.

2. Whether any pending interlocutory applications required separate disposal after the settlement.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, while Article 227 provides for its supervisory jurisdiction; the petitioner invoked both to challenge the Labour Court’s award.

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, provides the procedural basis identified for the parties’ mediated settlement.

The Court noted that the parties had settled the dispute before the Mediation Centre and had filed their memorandum of settlement.

As the settlement addressed the claims arising from the Labour Court award and sought disposal of the writ petition on its terms, the Court disposed of the petition accordingly, without independently deciding the challenge to the award on its merits.

The High Court disposed of all pending interlocutory applications, if any.