1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court which has held that the petitioners have indulged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioners to extend the benefits of the settlement dated 14.5.2004 to the respondent workmen (for short, hereinafter referred to as "workmen") with retrospective effect and to pay simple interest @ 15% per annum on the arrears. The petitioners have also been directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the workmen.

3. The issue involved in the present petition is whether an individual workman can be denied benefits available under a settlement signed between the employer and a recognised union under section 2(p) read with section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act if he does not submit an undertaking/declaration to the employer as stipulated under the settlement? FACTS: On 14.5.2004, a settlement was arrived at between Respondent No.3 which is a recognised union under the MRTU & PULP Act and the petitioners. This settlement was signed in accordance with sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. The settlement pertained to revision of wages and other service conditions of the workmen employed in the Patalganga factory of the petitioners. Under the settlement every worker who wished to receive the benefits available under the settlement was expected to sign a declaration in the format annexed to the settlement. This declaration was to be submitted to the Petitioners on or before 31.5.2004. The settlement also provided that in the event a workman did not submit the declaration within the stipulated time, the benefits of the settlement would be extended to him only in respect of the prospective wages w.e.f. the 1st month following the date of submission of the declaration. The petitioner contended that 70 workmen out of the total number of 73 workmen in its Patalganga factory have submitted their declaration before 30.5.2004. Three of the workmen including Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not submitted the declaration. Admittedly, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not members of Respondent No.3. In these circumstances, the benefits of the settlement were not extended to the workmen who had not submitted the declaration.

4. Complaint (ULP) No.699 of 2006 was filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 complaining of an unfair labour practice committed by the petitioners under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The workmen contended that the settlement dated 14.5.2004 was signed with a recognised union and was therefore, binding on every workmen whether or not that workman was a member of the recognised union. It was further pleaded that the workmen were thus entitled to the benefits of the settlement without having to sign any undertaking. Equally the responsibilities and duties cast on the workmen under the settlement would be binding on them without them having to sign the undertaking.

5. The petitioners in their reply to the complaint contended that the benefits of the settlement were available to every employee who signed the individual declaration. The petitioners contended that the condition of having to sign a declaration was stipulated in clause 14 of the settlement and, therefore, it was a part and parcel of the settlement of 14.5.2004. It was also contended that the workmen could not accept the settlement in a truncated manner and were required to accept it as a whole, including the condition of submitting a declaration.

6. Evidence of the workmen was also led in support of the complaint. The petitioners did not lead any evidence in the matter. The workmen conceded that all the other 73 workmen except themselves and one other workman had accepted the settlement and had also submitted the required declaration.

7. The Industrial Court by its impu