A tripartite agreement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is valid and binding on the parties, even if it is not in the prescribed form, provided that it is in substantial compliance with the provisions of the relevant rules.

( 1 ) THIS appeal at the instance of the respondent is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single judge in C. O. No. 1249 (W) of 1996.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent was an employee under the appellant and he worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12 months preceding his termination. On 10. 4. 92 the writ petitioner was appraised that his service was no more required and as such he was terminated with immediate effect. Under the letter dated 11. 4. 92 the service of the writ petitioner was terminated with effect from 13. 4. 92 and account payee cheque was enclosed with the said letter. Although notice of termination was issued on 11. 4. 92 the same was posted on 12. 4. 92. There was paper publication in two daily newspapers The Telegraph' and The ajkal' on 27. 4. 92 and therefrom it appeared that termination was effected from 13. 4. 92. The Tribunal held that subsequently there was tripartite agreement held on 9. 7. 92 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner in respect of the dispute between the employer and the site workmen represented by All India E. P. I. Sites Employees' Union over the termination of the employment of the site workmen arising out of the closure of the project work. On the basis of such agreement some of the workers were retained in the Company and 32 out of 33 temporary workmen had taken terminal benefits. The writ petitioner did not take any benefit. The Tribunal was of the view that the said settlement was legal and binding on the parties and the order of reference was incompetent and without jurisdiction and the management was justified in terminating the service of the writ petitioner.

( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal the writ petitioner filed the writ petition and learned Single Judge by the impugned order set aside the award and directed the respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages immediately.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the respondent in the writ petition preferred this appeal.

( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned Lawyer for the appellant Sri arunava Ghosh that reinstatement of writ petitioner was not possible in view of the fact that the project was closed. As project was closed the question of application of the provision of Section 25f of the Industrial disputes Act does not arise and the order of termination of the writ petitioner is valid.

( 6 ) SRI Ghosh further contended that there was a tripartite settlement entered into by the Union representing all the 33 workmen including the writ petitioner being member of the said Union. The said agreement is binding upon the writ petitioner. In the tripartite agreement it was decided that the employees who had completed 7 years of service or more under the company and who could not submit applications for consideration of appointment of regular roles of the company as per its circular dated 11. 4. 92 would be allowed to submit the same within 3 weeks from 9. 7. 92 for consideration of the company. The employees who were willing to accept the terminal benefits as per the rules of the company might do so and their names would be empanelled by the company for future employment in the company as per the existing Rules. 32 workmen out of 33 workmen accepted the terms and got the terminal benefits. Only the writ petitioner did not accept the same. The Tribunal was not asked to declare the said tripartite settlement dated 9. 7. 92 winch was reached in course of a conciliation proceeding as a void one and instead the parties proceeded on the basis of said tripartite settlement as the said settlement is valid one and has got binding effects.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant placed his reliance upon the decisions reported in 2000 (1) SCC 371, 2006 (2) SCC 711, 1997 (10)SCC 727, 1997 (1) SCC 9 and 1996 (1) SCC 773.

( 8 ) IT was contended by Mr. A. Debnath learned Lawyer for the respondent that the mandatory provisions of Se