A settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be brought about with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer, must comply with Chapter V-A and Chapter V-B of the Act, and cannot be based on a claim of voluntary retirement without adequate proof.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, Ag. CJ.

Respondents 8, 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 3035 of 1988 are the appellants in this writ appeal. Petitioners 1 to 5 in the writ petition are respondents 1 to 5 in this writ appeal. Respondents 1, 4 and 7 and 9 and 11 in the writ petition are respondents 6 to 13 in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioners came to this Court by way of the writ petition, projecting the following prayer :

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records of the respondents culminated in Settlement Rc. No. 442 of 1988 dated March 7, 1988 signed by respondents 1 to 7 under Section12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper .....".

To sustain the prayer in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, contentions were raised on three bases. The first one is that the Conciliation Officer did not induce the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute, and, on the other hand, he merely and mechanically signed at the bottom of the settlement without any application of mind. The second one is that the settlement has not conformed to the provisions of Sections 12(2) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The third one is that the settlement is opposed to Chapter V-A and Chapter V-B of the Act, besides patently containing arbitrary and unreasonable stipulations, without rhyme and reason. The learned single Judge examined every one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and they have been accepted by the learned single Judge. As a result, the learned single Judge issued a declaration that the settlement in question is not one arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under Section12(3) of the Act, and in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the same shall be void and of no effect. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.

2. Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for respondents 8, 2 and 3/appellants herein, would submit that in every case where there has been a consensus between the parties, there is no need to insist for the Conciliation Officer trying to conciliate and induce the parties to come to fair and amicable settlement and the Conciliation Officer could straightway accept whatever terms agreed to by consensus. Learned Counsel for respondents 8, 2 and 3 has not lost sight of the pronouncements, which speak about the position, other way about. The uniform view is that a settlement will not have the effect of a settlement under Section12(3) of the Act unless it is brought about with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer and he has got a significant role to play to see to it that the terms arrived at are fair to both the parties. Apart from making the above statement at the Bar by the learned counsel for respondents 8, 2 and 3, he did not cite any authority, which has countenanced such a settlement.

3. Then learned counsel for respondents 8, 2 and 3 would submit that even if a settlement could not survive as one under Section12 of the Act, yet it could survive under Section18(1) of the Act. Here learned counsel for respondents 8, 2 and 3 has to overcome the other hurdle, namely, the settlement has been found by the learned single Judge as violating the provisions of Chapter V-A and Chapter V-B of the Act. It is here learned counsel for respondents 8, 2 and 3 would submit that it is a case of a voluntary retirement and he draws our attention to the expressions used in the impugned settlement. The fact remains that there is non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter V-A and Chapter V-B of the Act. A case