Written industrial settlements prevail over alleged oral understandings; predetermined VDA arrears are recoverable through summary certificate proceedings.

A written industrial settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be varied, modified, or superseded by an alleged oral understanding, because settlements are required to be in writing and an oral arrangement cannot contradict their terms. On the facts stated, no oral understanding was proved, so the employer remained bound by the written settlement until replaced by a valid fresh settlement. Arrears of VDA fixed under that settlement were recoverable under Section 33C(1) as money already due, since only verification or arithmetical computation was required and the rate and period were not disputed. The summary recovery certificates were therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a written industrial settlement could be varied, modified, or superseded by an alleged oral understanding; and (ii) whether arrears of VDA determined under the settlement were recoverable through proceedings under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): whether a written industrial settlement could be varied, modified, or superseded by an alleged oral understanding.

Analysis: A settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a written settlement, and Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 likewise contemplates a memorandum of settlement in writing signed by the parties. Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 excludes proof of an oral arrangement that would contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of such written settlement. On the facts found by the Labour Commissioner and the High Court, no oral understanding was proved, and the alleged freezing of VDA could not lawfully displace the earlier written settlement.

Conclusion: the alleged oral understanding did not vary, modify, or supersede the written settlement, and the employer remained bound by the settlement terms until replaced by a valid fresh settlement.

Issue (ii): whether arrears of VDA determined under the settlement were recoverable through proceedings under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 33C(1) provides a summary mechanism for recovery of money due under a settlement or award where the amount is already determined and only verification or arithmetical computation is required, while Section 33C(2) applies where computation in terms of money is itself in issue. Since the rate of VDA and the period for which it was claimed were not in dispute, the claim fell within the scope of Section 33C(1). The proceeding was therefore properly treated as a recovery proceeding for money due under the settlement, and resort to Section 10(1) or Section 33C(2) was not necessary for that claim.

Conclusion: the recovery certificates issued under Section 33C(1) were valid and the workmen's claim was maintainable under that provision.

Final Conclusion: the appeals failed because the written settlement continued to govern the VDA liability and the arrears were recoverable through the summary certificate procedure under Section 33C(1).

Ratio Decidendi: a written industrial settlement cannot be varied by an oral understanding, and where the amount due under such settlement is predetermined and requires only verification or computation, recovery may be pursued under the summary procedure for money due.

---