Industrial Tribunal Has Jurisdiction Despite Sec. 33-C(1) | HC

Case details: Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Telangana - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 539 (HC - TELANGANA)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Nagesh Bheemapaka,J.
• N. Sreedhar Reddy for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner-company entered into a development agreement with DBR Mills to develop certain land contingent upon settling monetary claims of mill workers. The Petitioner voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement dated July 3, 2017, with six workmen unions, including respondent No. 4, with full knowledge of its obligations, including a specific monetary obligation to pay Rs. 7 lacs to each worker.

The said settlement was recorded during conciliation proceedings before the Joint Commissioner of Labour. Based on said settlement, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal seeking an award of Rs. 49 lacs.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to interdict the Tribunal from proceeding with the enquiry in connection with said application, contending that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the same.

It was noted that the settlement dated 7-3-2017, being recorded during conciliation proceedings, fell within the purview of a settlement under sections 2(p) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The High Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal is empowered under section 11 of the Act to adjudicate disputes involving settlements. Further, pendency of proceedings under section 33-C(1) of the Act before a Magistrate does not bar the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the reliefs sought in the instant writ petition arose from a common source, i.e., the settlement dated 7-3-2017, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the application filed by respondent No. 4. Thus, no ground was made out to interdict such proceedings.