Though different views are expressed on the inter se connection between the two cases, having heard them together involving the same parties, they are disposed of accordingly.

2. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner in W.P.No.24228 of 2016 is to be noted as such for both the cases.

3. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 34038 of 2013 is hereinafter referred to as Management and the fourth respondent Union viz., MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union is referred to as the respondent.

4. M/s MRF Limited has a factory at Arakkonam, dealing in manufacturing of tyres and tubes. Settlements have been signed with MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees' Association, between 1989 and 2004. The writ petitioner, MRF United Workers Union, raised an industrial dispute relating to wages and services in I.D.No.14 of 2008. During the pendency of the conciliation and before the reference, a settlement was signed by MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees' Association with the Management in the year 2004. Another settlement was signed by the respondent-MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union during the pendency of the dispute. It appears that vast majority of the workers accepted the settlement from the year 1989 and rea