( 1 ) THE validity of the settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) read with Rule 59 of the Rules framed by the State Government under the Act entered into between the fourth Respondent-Management of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. , (in short the Management) and the MICO Employees Association purporting to be represented by its president - fifth respondent, viz. , F. M. Khan, Member of Parliament, is challenged by petitioners 1 to 6, who are the office bearers of the MICO Employees' Association (in short the association) represented by its General Secretary, the President, Assistant Secretary, the executive Committee Member, the Treasurer and a Committee Member respectively.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they are the duly elected office-bearers of the Association and they had submitted a charter of demands to the Management for the revision of wags-structure, enhancement of dearness allowance and for providing transport facilities etc. , on 14-4-1980 with the sanction of the Special General Body Meeting held on 13-4-1980. Pursuant to this charter of demands, a number of bipartite meetings were held between the petitioners and the Management and certain tripartite Meetings were also held before the second respondent Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in regard to these demands. The Association is the only union of all the workmen employed by the management but the fifth respondent who was a stranger to the Association and admittedly belongs to the Ruling Party, with the support of the State Government, claimed to be the duly elected President of the Association with the help of his supporters and got up certain documents falsely to contend that he was the elected President of the Association and the impugned settlement was signed by him behind the back of the petitioners and without their knowledge by employing unfair means like using violence in the factory premises and obtaining signatures of some workers at the point of knives. The petitioner had brought to the notice of the commissioner that the fifth respondent had no representative capacity to represent the association and accordingly the Commissioner refused to have any conciliation proceedings with the fifth respondent. However, the impugned settlement was entered into in the chambers of the Minister for Labour (in short the Minister) on 23-7-1981 between the Management and the fifth respondent claiming to be the President of the Association. No conciliation proceedings took place on 23-7-1981 before the Minister and even otherwise the Minister was not authorised under the Act and the Rules thereunder to function as a State Conciliation Officer and he had no power to hold conciliation meetings under Section 12 (3) of the Act; similarly, the third respondent-Joint Labour Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the JLC) had no authority to sign the settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Act and Rule 59 of the Rules and he also had not applied his mind to the question whether the settlement was just, fair and reasonable; the minutes of the meeting recorded in the chambers of the Minister on 23-7-81 do not disclose that there were conciliation proceedings as required under law and therefore the impugned settlement is not in accordance with law and liable to be quashed. If such settlement is not a settlement under section 12 (3) of the Act, the provisions of Section 18 (3) of the Act are not attracted and therefore the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the settlement is not one made in the course of conciliation proceedings as claimed by the Management. In support of this contention, the petitioners have further averred that albeit the fact that the conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner, the JLC who had no jurisdiction continued the same in the absence of any order transferring the proceedings to his file and the impugned sett