The issue that has been canvassed by the petitioners is about their entitlement to bonus for the year 2002-2003 over and above 20% of the earnings received by them during the relevant year. As an interim measure, in fact an excess amount of bonus had been paid and steps are being taken for recovery of such excess amounts paid. The establishment concerned is a factory in private sector. I may briefly state the relevant facts which might be necessary for deciding the matter.

2. By a conciliation settlement arrived at in the presence of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Tiruvananthapuram (1st respondent) dated 05-12-2003, the petitioners, who were representatives of the employees of the S.E.P.R. Refractories India Limited (3rd respondent), had agreed that a fresh scheme for Productivity Linked Bonus (P.L.B) could be evolved and the decision as given by the Agency will be accepted and adopted. The management had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7750/- to each workman in the nature of an advance, and this amount was agreed to be adjusted depending upon the decision of the P.L.B. Scheme. Such scheme was to be valid and applicable till a long-term settlement was signed.

3. The National Productivity Council (NPC) was the expert body which the parties had in their mind. In the unit of the third respondent, even before the relevant year, namely 2002 – 2003, bonus was being paid linked on production and productivity. The Kerala State Productivity Council had been earlier entrusted with the duty and the workmen felt that the Scheme prepared by the said body did not reflect the correct position. They had even a doubt that the admissible bonus to the employees was consistently being curtailed because of an unscientific approach by them. It was also a reason therefore for the Unions to pressurize the management to seek the help of an altogether different expert body.

4. In terms of the settlement as above, the second respondent-National Productivity Council, Chennai had conducted a study in January February, 2004. By Ext.P4 dated 16-03-2004, the third respondent-management had advised the workmen that in view of the final report given by the NPC, a copy of which had already been issued to the Unions, the bonus payable for the year 2002-2003 comes to 20% and the management was prepared to pay such bonus. However, it had but been indicated that an excess payment stood paid consequent to settlement dated 05-12-2003, and such excess amount necessarily deserved to be recovered in five equal instalments starting from March, 2004 onwards.

5. According to the petitioners, the study report submitted by the NPC was improper and unacceptable. A copy of the report is Ext.P2. They wished to avoid a recovery and had taken up the matter before the Additional Labour Commissioner by Ext.P3 and wanted him to conciliate thereon and cure the illegal defects in the Scheme. They had also gone to an extent that the settlement itself was not fair and reasonable. The officer had not taken any consequent action. The present request therefore is for a writ to be issued to the Additional Labour Commissioner to hear all parties on Ext.P3, hold that the ceiling on payment of bonus which had been proposed was illegal and of course forbearing the management from proceeding in any manner for recovering the amounts allegedly paid as excess towards bonus.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent opposing the application. The learned Government Pleader was heard on behalf of the first respondent-Additional Labour Commissioner.

7. At the out set, I have to observe that the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are misconceived. A settlement in conciliation had been arrived at between the parties, and under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it binds them. As flowing from the settlement, the parties had agreed for evolving a fresh PLB Scheme. Such a Scheme had been prescribed by an expert body, by way of Ext.P2. It was a specific term of the