MIS. FABRIL GASOSA versus LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 725 · Decided: 31-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
MIS. FABRIL GASOSA 
A 
v. 
LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 
JANUARY 31, 1997 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
B 
Lahour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(p ). 
c 
Settlement-Definition of-Held: Contemplated only written settlement 
and not oral settlement-No oral agreement could be pleaded to vary or 
modify a written settlement-Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, R. 
SB-Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. 91 and 92. Sections 33-C(l) and (2) and 
10(1)-Settlement-Recovery of money due under-Variable Dearness Al-
lowance (VDA)-Rate of-f'redetem1ined in tem1s of-Period for which it was D 
payable not in dispute-Held: Claim for recovery of an·ears of VDA under 
S.33- C(l) maintainable-Recourse to S.33-C(2) was pennissible only when 
amount due was required to be detennined. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Settlement"--Meaning of-/11 the context of S.2(p) of the Industrial 
. Disputes Act, 1947. 
E 
A settlement was arrived at between the appellants and the 
employees union relating to service conditions of the workmen. The settle-
F 
ment provided that Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) shall be provided 
and the wages of the employees would be linked with the VDA. The 
employees union issued a notice of its intention to terminate the settlement 
and issued a fresh charter ·or demands for an increase in the salary. The 
employees union did not seek any change in the charter of demands insofar G 
as the rate of VDA was concerned. The appellants relying upon the notice 
of termination of the settlement and the new charter of demands, 
unilaterally freezed the VDA. The employees union issued a demand notice 
to the appellants demanding VDA. The Labour Commissioner issued a 
certificate of recovery under Section 33-C(l) of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 of payment of VDA. The appellants filed a writ petition before H 
725 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A the High Court challenging the aforesaid recovery certificate, which was 
dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
B 
c 
D 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the settlement was 
time bound and since it was terminated by the employees union through 
its notice, the employees union could not maintain any application under 
Section 33-C(l) of the Act; that an oral agreement was arrived at between 
the appellants and the employees union to freeze the VDA; and that the 
employees union could take recourse to seeking a reference under Section 
10(1) of the Act or to file an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act 
but not to the provisions of Section 33-C(t) of the Act. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the claim for 
money due, which only was required to be calculated and not determined, 
could be made under Section 33-C(t) of the Act and the respondent was 
not obliged to take recourse to either Section 10(1) or section 3-C(2) of the 
Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. A conjoint reading of Section 2(p) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 
E 1957 unmistakably shows that the settlement contemplated by the said 
provisions in a w1itten settlement and not an oral settlement. A w1itte11 
settlement arrived at between the parties could not therefore, be varied or 
modified except by a written settlement or by a written memorandum duly 
signed by the parties incorporating the terms of the so called under-
standing. Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 also lays down that when 
F 
the terms of any contract, grant or settlement, as are required by law to 
be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved as per the 
provisions of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, no evidence of any oral 
agreement or settlement shall be admitted as between the parties to any 
such instrument or their representatives in interest for the purpose of 
G contradicting, vmying, adding to or subtracting from its tenns. [734-F-H] 
1.2. When money due is on the basis of some amount predetermined 
like the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA), the rate of which stands 
determined in terms of the settlement, an award, or under Chapter V-A or 
V-8 of the Act and the period for which the arrears are claimed is also 
H known, the case would be covered by Section 33-C(l) as only a calculation 
-
~-
' 
-
.,... 
( ' 
M/S. FABRIL GASOSA v. LABOUR COMMR. 
727 
of the amount is required to be made. 
1.3. An analysis of the scheme of Sections .33-C(l) and 33-C(2) shows 
that the difference between
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.