JUDGMENT : 1. This bunch comprises of writ petitions filed by the petitioner-Ambuja Cements Ltd. Company (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), challenging the proceedings undertaken by the employees before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 2. Though all the cases involve identical facts, however, for the sake of brevity and clarity the facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12761/2020 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Gautam Dewasi & Anr. are taken into consideration. 3. The respondent Gautam Dewasi was deployed as a casual labourer by a contractor, namely M/s Jain Carrying Corporation to work at the factory of the petitioner – Company. 4. The Company decided to bring end to the services of the Contractor, namely, Jain Carrying Corporation as it was no more in requirement of the employees, who were engaged through the Contractor. A tripartite settlement came to be executed on 09.08.2016 between petitioner-Company, Contractor and the respondent-employee. Accordingly, the respondent-employee was paid a total sum of Rs.402685/-being ex-gratia, Gratuity amount along with other legal dues (Rs.253728; Rs.123957/-; Rs.25000/-) and such fact of which was duly recorded in the tripartite settlement. The said amount has been agreed to be given/accepted towards full and final settlement and the respondent-employee had agreed to make no claim or raise dispute of any nature whatsoever against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. 5. Para No.6(H) of the agreement in question needs special mention, for which it is hereby reproduced as under:- “(H) Mr. Gautam hereby categorically agrees and accepts that on receiving the aforesaid amount as mentioned in clause number G of this terms of settlement he shall have absolutely no claim or demand or dispute of any nature whatsoever left against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. As well as contractor M/s Jain Carrying Corporation and as such, all his claims, demands or dispute of any nature whatsoever against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. including those pertaining to reinstatement or employment or absorption etc. etc. shall stand fully and finally settled, and he shall not be competent to raise any dispute, much less any industrial dispute, against M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd.” 6. Having accepted the amount of settlement, the respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute and after failure of conciliation proceedings a claim petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, which was registered as case No.45/2018. 7. Having accepted the amount of settlement, the respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute and after failure of conciliation proceedings a claim petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, which was registered as case No.45/2018. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings so lodged by the respondent-employee, the petitioner – Company moved an application under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) and prayed that the respondents be directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,49,627/-being amount of Rs.4,60,145/-paid to the employee along with interest @ 18% from August, 2016 to August, 2019 in order to continue the proceedings. 8. The respondent-employee filed a reply to the said application and while accepting the factum of payment so made by the petitioner – Company (through the Contractor), stated that the settlement in question was not as per Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that employee’s rights cannot be curtailed. A plea was taken that since the impugned amount was not in accordance with law, no direction can be issued to return the amount received by the respondent-employee. 9. The application under section 29 of the Act of 1947, filed by the petitioner – Company came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.2020. While rejecting petitioner’s application, the learned Tribunal observed that since the respondent-workman has challenged the very genuineness and enforcibility of the settlement in question having been executed under duress, the application filed by the petitioner-Company cannot be accepted and neither any direction to return the amount received by the employee can be issued, nor can any criminal proceedings be instituted against the workman. 10. Challenging the order dated 28.07.2020, the petitioner-Company has preferred these writ petitions. 11. By way of the interim order dated 15.12.2020, this Court has stayed the further proceedings in Industrial Dispute Case No.45/2018, filed by the respondent-Gautam Dewasi. Similar orders have also been passed qua the claim petitions filed by the other respondents, against the petitioner – Company. 12. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner – Company argued that the fact that the tripartite settlement came to be executed between the petitioner – Company and the respondent-employee is not in dispute so is the fact that the respondent-employee Gautam Dewasi has received a sum of Rs.4,02,685/-as full and final settlement of his claim. 12. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner – Company argued that the fact that the tripartite settlement came to be executed between the petitioner – Company and the respondent-employee is not in dispute so is the fact that the respondent-employee Gautam Dewasi has received a sum of Rs.4,02,685/-as full and final settlement of his claim. He argued that as per the terms of the settlement, the respondents-employees cannot institute proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. It was argued that the respondents cannot retract from the settlement consciously signed by them with eyes wide open. 14. In the alternative, it was submitted that if the respondents-workmen wishes to continue with the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, they should first return the amount along with interest. 15. Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Contractor accepted the factum of the tripartite settlement arrived at between the parties and submitted that the same was executed without any coercion or duress. 16. Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen on the other hand submitted that the respondents were forced to enter into the settlement and any settlement in violation of the rights of the workmen is void. 17. It was argued that though the respondents-workmen had received the amount but such act of accepting the amount cannot close petitioners’ way of approaching the Court of justice, more particularly when the settlement took place under misconception. 18. He submitted that after 7 years, the respondents-workmen, who have been rendered jobless, cannot be asked to return the amount received by them along with the interest. 19. He prayed that the impugned proceedings be allowed to continue and the amount paid by the petitioner – Company be made subject to outcome of the claim/case lodged by the respondents-workmen. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21. It is not at all in dispute that the respondents-workmen had entered into a tripartite settlements and the settlements were signed not only by the respondent-employee Gautam Dewasi alone, but by many other workmen, who are involved in the present batch of litigation. 22. No grievance or complaint had ever been made by the respondents-workmen about the settlement having been got executed under coercion or duress. 23. 22. No grievance or complaint had ever been made by the respondents-workmen about the settlement having been got executed under coercion or duress. 23. On the contrary, the respondents have gleefully accepted the amount paid by the petitioner – Company in terms of the settlement. 24. The initiation of proceedings or dispute before the learned Tribunal is nothing but an attempt to arm-twist the petitioner-Company or to harass it. The proceedings so lodged by the respondents-workmen are, therefore, nothing short of abuse of the process of law. 25. Having guided by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc. Vs. Vikram Cement Etc. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7923 and Man Singh Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2488, the present writ petition so also all the writ petitions involved in the present group are allowed. 26. The impugned proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal are hereby kept in abeyance. All these matters will be taken up by the Labour Court on 08.01.2024. 27. The respondent(s) shall however be at liberty to deposit the amount received by them along with the interest @ 6% per annum by way of Demand Draft in the name of petitioner-Company. The interest will be calculated for the period commencing from the date of the receiving the amount till the date of amount being deposited before the learned Labour Court. 28. In all those cases where the amount in original along with the interest @ 6% is deposited by any of the respondents workmen on or before 31.12.2023, the proceedings shall be under taken. The proceedings of each such case in which the respondent-employee does not deposit the amount by 31st December, 2023 shall stand annulled. 29. Stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly. 30. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen after the judgment having been dictated, prayed that the condition of payment of interest @ 6% be made easy in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Man Singh (supra). 31. Having compared the facts and circumstances of the present case with the facts involved in the case of Man Singh (supra), this Court finds that there is significant difference in the facts. 31. Having compared the facts and circumstances of the present case with the facts involved in the case of Man Singh (supra), this Court finds that there is significant difference in the facts. In the case of Man Singh (supra), the petitioner therein had moved the application for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted, whereas in the present case all the petitioners have entered into a tripartite settlement and relinquished their claims of raising dispute by signing the settlement deed with their own will and volition. 32. If the respondents-workmen want to wriggle out of such settlement and take up the legal course, they have to return the amount and restitute/compensate the company. This Court finds it a fit case, where the respondents-workmen can be permitted to revive the proceedings only after payment of the amount received along with the interest. 33. The request made by the Mr. Bhati is, therefore, turned down. 34. Needless to observe that the observation made by this Court herein above shall be treated to be relevant for the purpose of decision of these writ petition no manner shall feel bound or influenced by the observations so made. The respondents’ case(s) if revived, shall be decided on its own merit, dispassionately.