ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

All these appeals have a common matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellants which were filed against judgments of learned Single Judge.

2. Factual background needs to be noted in brief:

Around 1980 the All-India Transport Employees Association (in short `Association) raised dispute relating to certain general demands including pay-scales, dearness allowance etc. in relation to employees employed with various transports having establishment all over India. The dispute was referred by the appropriate Government on 12th August, 1981 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short `the Act) for adjudication. Initially the reference was in respect of 259 employers. Subsequently, by a corrigendum issued on 25.2.1982 116 more employers were included in the reference. A common award was made by the Industrial Tribunal on 12th November, 1986. Award was challenged by some of the transporters and the union representing some of the workmen by filing writ petitions. By common judgment dated 11th November, 1992 the writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court remanding the reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The High Court found that the Tribunal instead of fixing fair wages had fixed minimum wages as the wages payable to the concerned workmen. When the matter was taken by the Tribunal afresh, all the 28 transporters and the workmen appeared before the Industrial Tribunal. Two unions which are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein appeared before the Tribunal taking the stand that they were representing the workmen. While the matter was pending before the Industrial Tribunal it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the concerned workmen had entered into settlements with the employer-transporters and request was made to dispose of the reference accordingly. This plea was resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-unions. The Tribunal did not accept the settlement by holding as follows:

"The settlement if arrived with coercive under influence, by fraud or by corrupt practices and adopting malafide and by inducement then it should be examined. ......In these settlement the basic wages are fixed at the rate of minimum wages as notified in 20th July 1994 giving increments. In these settlements there is no dearness allowance agreed between the workers and employer respectively. Even the demand of transfer subject to consultation with union has not been agreed. In other words during the pendency and at the final stage of the proceeding these settlement have arrived and given goodbye to all the demands...If these settlements are accepted then in other words the minimum wages are allowed to be paid. As the lordship in W.P. has observed that the Tribunal has to fix fair wages, and not the minimum wages. The Government machinery has to fix the minimum wages and not the Tribunals or court of law, to fix the minimum wages."

3. The Tribunal fixed the wages which according to it were the fair wages. The award was assailed by filing writ petitions in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short `the Constitution).

4. Before the learned Single Judge in certain cases the affidavits of the workers concerned were filed stating that the dispute with the employer was settled and they were agreeable to the wage settled under the settlement. The learned Single Judge, however, was of the view that the Tribunals judgment did not warrant interference as the Tribunal was bound to answer the reference in terms of the order of the High Court. Appeals were preferred before the Division Bench. By the impugned common judgment they were dismissed.

5. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the Tribunal and the High Court is clearly erroneous. The concerned workmen never questioned fairness of terms of the settlement. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2-unions who had no lo