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