Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Shivraj Gaokar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal whereby the preliminary issue raised by the Petitioners to the effect that no appropriate notice under Section 19(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short 'The Act'), served on the Petitioners to terminate the settlement came to be rejected.

3. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that under the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, it is mandatory for the Respondents to serve a notice of two months in order to show their intention of terminating a settlement. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the settlement arrived at between the Petitioners and the Union/Respondents, was for a period ending 31.01.2008. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the notice dated 01.11.2007 and pointed out that the said notice was received by the Petitioners on 07.11.2007 and, considering the pro