Gokulakrishnan, J.

The appellant is the writ petitioner.

2. The writ petitioner is the Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Employees' Union represented by its Secretary. The writ petition was filed praying for the issue of a writ of declaration, after calling for the records from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Headquarters), Tamil Nadu Labour welfare Fund Buildings, Teynampet, Madras (first respondent) relating to the File D. Dis. No. S4/84421/81, dated 14th October, 1981 (filed along with the petition and marked as Ex. A) as null and void and consequently directing the fifth respondent (The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu at Madras) in No. 1254/81 dated 6th October, 1981.

3. The allegations of the petitioner-Union are : The petitioner-Union has a substantial following among the workmen in the second respondent-Company. The petitioner-Union has entered into settlements under S.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to in this Judgment as the Act) covering all the workmen before the Conciliation Officer. One such settlement was made on 6th April, 1979 covering 439 casual employees who were working for quite a number of years with the second respondent-Management. By virtue of the settlement dated 6th April, 1979 the 439 casual employees were made temporary workers and were given better service conditions. Since these workmen were retained as temporary workmen for more than two years, the petitioner-Union wrote to the Management on 20th February, 1981 requesting to confirm them. Ultimately, conciliation proceedings were started by the Labour Officer at Chengalpattu. This was intimated by notice dated 30th May, 1981 also stating that the conciliation would begin as and from 15th June, 1981. Apart from the grievance of Keeping of 439 workmen as temporary workmen the petitioner raised several other demands before the Conciliation Officer. On account of intimidation on the part of the Management, the conciliation proceedings did not start as scheduled and therefore the petitioner-Union issued a strike notice by letter dated 2nd July, 1981. Subsequent to this strike notice, the Conciliation Officer, Chengalpattu, started the proceedings of conciliation as and from 26th August, 1981. The proceedings notice was duly issued to the Britannia Industries Employees' Union represented by its General Secretary (third respondent, submitted its remarks before the conciliation Officer by letter dated 15th July, 1981, refusing to agree to any of the petitioner-Union's demands. In those circumstances, the fourth respondent (The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu at Madras) did not have any other option but to record his 'failure' and he submitted a report accordingly to the Government in A. 1254/81 dated 6th October, 1981 under S.12(4) of the Act. This report was received by the Government on 15th October, 1981.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Management, with sinister motive, prepared a cyclostyled agreement without notice to the writ petitioner, that the first respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters) at Madras, without notice to the Petitioner-Union, simply signed that agreement so as to give it an effect of a settlement under S. 12(3), that the writ petitioner came to know about the plan of the President of the Petitioner-Union sent a telegram to the Commissioner of Labour, Joint Commissioner of Labour, Deputy Commissioner of Labour and also to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Chengalpattu stating that they oppose any agreement retrenching Britannia Industries Employees. Nevertheless, the settlement appears to have been signed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Headquarters) and in accordance with that agreement the Britannia Industries, on 15th October, 1981, wanted to terminate the services of 51 workmen who are all members of the Petitioner-Union. When questioned, the Management stated that by virtue of the settlement under S. 12(3), they w