A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is a "settlement" within the meaning of Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and is binding on the parties without strict compliance of Rule 58 (3) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-employer by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays a writ of certiorari to quash the certificate dated 23rd October, 1969 issued by the Labour Commissioner; Delhi, respondent No. 2 under Section 33c (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be REFERRED TO to in brief as "the Act" ). The certificate is for an amount of Rs. 24156. 22. In accordance with this certificate, the Collector, Delhi, respondent No. 4 is directed to recover the above mentioned amount from the petitioner, in the same manner, as arrears of land revenue and distribute it to the 137 workmen. A list of the names and individual amounts due to each workman is enclosed with the certificate. As stated in the certificate, the amount is due as bonus for the year 1968-69, in accordance with the settlement dated 1st June, 1968.

( 2 ). Mr. Rakesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner urged vehemently and at length, that the certificate dated 23rd October, 1969 was invalid, as it was issued without jurisdiction. He submitted, that there was a breach by the workmen of Clause 6 and, as such, bonus in terms of Clause 4 of the settlement dated 1st June, 1968 was not payable. He. therefore, contended that since there was a dispute with regard to the liability to pay, the provisions of Section 33c (1) of the Act were not attracted, and/or the certificate could not be issued without deciding the dispute.

( 3 ). The memorandum of settlement is in Hindi and the English translation as annexed to the writ petition shows Clauses 4 and 6 as follows :

"4. That the bonus for 1968-69 will be paid at the rate of 14 per cent of annual wages including incentive and overtime allowance subject to the condition that no workman shall be entitled to receive bonus in excess of Rs. 250. The payment of this bonus will be made by 14th July, 1969. No dispute in respect of payment of bonus for the previous year remains pending. If payment of bonus is not made to any worker, he will be entitled to take proceedings for the payment of bonus at the said rate. "

"6. That in consideration of the settlement both the parties will try to increase production and discipline. "

( 4 ). It was strenuously urged that the words "in consideration make it clear that compliance with clause 6 was a condition precedent to payment of bonus in terms of clause 4. The workmen breached clause 6 as they went on strike on 29th June, 1968, so no money was due.

( 5 ). Mr. G. D. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents workmen, however, urged that clause 6 was in the nature of a goodwill clause and the payment of bonus as per clause 4 was not dependent on clause 6. He also placed clause 6 in Hindi as it was originally recorded. It is as follows :

"6. Iss aapsi samjhote ko vichar me rakhtey hue, dono pakash utpadan aur discipline ko badane me koshish karenge. "on examining the memorandum of settlement as recorded in Hindi, it was conceded by Mr. Rakesh Kanwar that his argument was not tenable, and clause 6 was, in fact, only a goodwill clause.

( 6 ). On 16th July, 1979, after some hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for time to seek instructions whether the writ petition had become intructuous. On 2nd August. 1979, an application for amendment of the writ petition was filed being C. M. 2217 of 1979. On 3rd August, 1979, notice was issued on this application and counsel for the respondents-workmen accepted the notice. I, then. directed that the application be listed for disposal along with the main writ petition.

( 7 ). The ground sought to be added by way of amendment is as follows :

"that the appropriate government has erred in issuing the recovery certificate under section 33 (1) (e) of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as the purported settlement which was sought to be enforced by issue of recovery certificate was not a settlement within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the appropriate government had no jurisdiction to