The court emphasized the importance of industrial peace and harmony and discouraged the tendency of raising issues by a union which had not participated in arriving at the settlement, despite having notice.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India making following prayers:"prayer: under these circumstances it is therefore prayed that his Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (i)issue an appropriate writ or writs directing the respondent no. 3 not to implement the settlement dtd. 31. 5. 1995 on the petitioner or its members in badarpur Thermal Power Station; and (ii)issue a writ or writs, order or orders declaring that the settlement dtd. 31. 5. 1995 is not a settlement arrived during the course of conciliation proceedings as envisaged under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore it is not binding on the petitioner and its members; (iii)pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case. "

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that a settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 3 and four workers' union on 31. 5. 1995. By this settlement, provisions were made in respect of revised wages, allowances, service conditions and other benefits. The previous agreement/settlement was similarly entered into in 1989 and had expired in 1991. At the time when the agreement dated 31. 05. 1995 was entered into, there were five unions active in the Badarpur Plant namely : ntpc Workers Union (affiliated to INTUC)BTPP Employees Union (affiliated to BMS)Badarpur Power Workers Union (affiliated to CITU)Badarpur Vidyut Karamchari Union (affiliated to DMC)Badarpur Power Engineers and Workers Union

( 3 ) DISCUSSION regarding settlement in conciliation proceedings were held in which four, out of five unions had participated and the petitioner union had not participated. The petitioner union had written a letter to the conciliation officer that it had received the proposed settlement only on 30. 5. 1995 and it was asked to give its response by 3 pm on 31. 5. 1995, which was not practical and it also objected to the fact that talks of settlement were to take place at the office of the management. The allegations were made that the conciliation officer was under the influence of the management. None from the petitioner's union attended the settlement proceedings on 31. 5. 1995. However, the settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 3 and other four unions in presence of the Labour Commissioner.

( 4 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has taken the stand that the petitioner had filed another writ petition No. 2480/1994 in respect of a dispute with regard to the question as to which was the true representative union of the employees of Badarpur Thermal Power Station and that writ was pending at the time when this settlement was arrived at. The contention of the petitioner is that the settlement had not been arrived at with true representative union of the employees of respondent No. 3 and it was the petitioner union that was the true representative of the employees. During arguments, it was submitted that when election by secret ballet was held, the petitioner union emerged as a majority union. The present settlement, though has been given a colour as if it has been arrived at under Section 12 (3) of industrial Disputes Act and was binding on all the employees even if they were not party to it, was dehorse the conciliation proceedings and, therefore, was not binding on the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 should have avoided to arrive at settlement because it was still to be decided which of the union was having true representative character and was entitled to enter into the settlement.

( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, it is stated that the writ petition was not maintainable as it involved disputed questions of facts which can be decided only on the basis of evidence for which there is effective and alternative remedy available under Industrial Disputes act. It is also stated that the petitioner had not come to court with cl