was further stated that the third respondent was paid gratuity of 1,17,943/-, for 38 years and two months, which was offered to the third respondent on the date of retirement, but refused to receive the same for reasons best known and the said amount was subsequently settled by cheque dated 27.02.2001, which was sent by post along with the covering letter, which is as per the statutory requirement. In fact, in the application filed by the third respondent before the second respondent, the exact particulars as to how and why the difference in gratuity had arisen, has not been specifically set out by the third respondent. Consequently, the counter/response filed by the petitioner Management has given details of the last drawn wages and stated how gratuity has been computed. Therefore, the second respondent was required to examine as to how the difference has arisen, as alleged by the third respondent. It appears that during the course of enquiry, it had come to light that the claim made by the third respondent was based on a settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The settlement, which the second respondent relied upon, was not a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, but one under Section 18(1) of the Act, which admittedly, will bind such of those employees, who are parties to the settlement. It has been established by producing facts and not controverted that the third respondent was not a member of the Union, which entered into the said settlement with the Management under Section 18(1) of the Act, whereas it appears that the third respondent refused to accept the terms of the settlement, dated 28.04.2000 and therefore, the Management was justified in applying the terms of the settlement to the third respondent, who was not a party thereon. In fact, this contention raised by the Management before the original authority as well as the appellate authority, was not properly appreciated.
