A settlement between an employer and a workman is valid only if it complies with the requirements of Section 2(p), 18(1), Rule 58, and Form H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957.

( 1 ) THIS writ throws a challenge to the award dated May 24, 1986, given by Shri OP. Dwivedi, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, which award was published in the gazette dated July 3, 1986.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the Cooperative Store Limited and is running Super Bazar. Respondent-Shri Ved Prakash Bhambri was employed as Cashier with the petitioner since 1966. The services of Ved Prakash Bhambri as well as of some other employees were terminated with effect from May 1,1976, on the ground that their services were no longer required by the petitioner. Subsequently, almost all other employees were taken back in service. However, respondent-Ved Prakash Bhambri allegedly was not taken back as he had moved an application dated October 6 1966, addressed to the Account Officer staling that be was to go out of India ax he had secured a passport and he requested that his provident fund case be forwarded to the Provident Fund Commissioner for necessary action. It appears that the respondent-Ved Prakash Bhambri raised an industrial dispute and the matter was brought before the Conciliation Officer but without success and at the instance of Ved Prakash, the Administrator made a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal vide notification dated February 3, 1977. The term of reference was to the following effect :

"whether the termination of services of Shri Ved Prakash Bhambri is illegal and or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled ?"

( 3 ) THE Management ha? taken up the plea before the Industrial Tribunal that the services of Ved Prakash were terminated as an act of retren chment and later on the employee had willingly settled his claim with the Management and in pursuance to the settlement, had received a cheque for Rs. 9. 849/33p in full and final settlement of all his claims including retrenchment benefits and the cheque was cleared for payment on February 8, 1977 and as the emplyoee had encashed the cheque and had accepted the settlement, thus, no claim was left which could be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE employee had, however, taken the plea before the Industrial that he had not willingly or voluntarily signed the said settlement. He gave out the fact that the Management had got him arrested and with connivance of the police and under the threat that be could be detained under MISA or DIR he was coerced in signing the alleged settlement. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the workman has settled the claim ? 2. As per terms of reference.

( 5 ) IN issue No. I the parties led evidence. The Management examined witnesses in order to show that it was a settlement made by the Workman with his free will and the workman, however, examined the witnesses including himself to show that he was coerced into signing the said settlement. However, the Industrial Tribunal in his wisdom did not give any finding on the real controversy arising between the parties as to whether the said settlement was made willingly by the Workman or not and the Industrial Tribunal went on to hold that the settlement was not legally valid inasmuch it did not comply with the Rule 58 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules. 1957, read with Form h . So, after holding that the settlement was not legally valid the Tribunal gave the finding in issue No. 2 that the termination of services of the services of the Workman was illegal and the retrenchment had not been made in accordance with law and so, he made the award directing the Management to reinstate the Workman with full back wages with continuity of service.

( 6 ) IT is evident that if the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the settlement being invalid is to be accepted then award made by the Tribunal is unexceptional and must be maintained.

( 7 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as there was no plea taken by the Workman in challenging the settlement on the score that it did not comply with Rule 58 of the Industrial Dis