"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Settlement Binding from Date of Signing; Employees to Receive Dues Immediately or Within a Reasonable Period – Calcutta High Court Upholds Interest on Delayed Payment of Arrears

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a significant judgment today, the High Court of Calcutta has upheld the decision that Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of arrears to a retired employee, citing that the settlement agreement should be executed immediately or within a reasonable period after signing. The judgment addressed the company’s challenge against a previous direction to pay interest for the delay pursuant to a settlement agreement dated March 30, 2019.

Legal Context and Company’s Position

Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Had entered into a settlement agreement with its employees in 2019, which stipulated payment conditions for arrears covering the period from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2026. Despite acknowledging their financial capability demonstrated by profit disclosures from 2016 to 2021, the company delayed the payment of arrears until November 24, 2022, without including the agreed interest.

Isses at Hand

The main legal issues revolved around:

Whether the High Court’s intervention was warranted despite alternative remedies available under the Industrial Dispute Act, particularly Sections 33 C(1) and 33 C(2).

The justification of imposing interest on delayed payments despite no specific clause in the settlement about interest entitlement.

Court’s Assessment and Ruling

The court meticulously rejected the company’s arguments that alternative remedies precluded High Court jurisdiction. It emphasized the immediate enforceability of settlements upon signing, as per Section 19 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The court observed that, “In absence of any dates specified for operation of the settlement… it shall be the date on which the memorandum of settlement is signed.”

Justice Soumen Sen noted, “The settlement becomes enforceable on the date of signing. The appellant had the financial capacity and there were no supervening circumstances justifying the delay in payment.” The decision also highlighted that the employer’s obligation is not diminished by the availability of alternative legal remedies or the need for exhaustive evidence.

Conclusion and Impact

his uling reaffirms the principle that settlements are binding from the time of their signing and that employees are entitled to their dues without unreasonable delay. The court’s stance on ensuring that companies adhere to their commitments in employee settlements will likely influence how employment disputes and settlement agreements are handled in the future.

Date of Decision: May 7, 2024.

Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Kamal Biswas & Ors.,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similar News