The binding nature and legal force of the Tripartite Settlement, particularly Clause-6, influenced the court's decision in setting aside the rejection order and directing the Competent Authority to make a decision on the petitioners' regularization within a stipulated period.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves the following prayer:

"That the petitioners therefore pray that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the writ petition and to issue a "RULE NISI" to the Opposite Parties to show cause as to ;

(i) Why the rejection order dtd.12.1.2016 vide Annexure-4 will not be quashed with direction of the O.Ps. to appoint the petitioners as Clerk-'B' trainee with prescribed scale of pay by declaring result within time stipulation or regularize the service of the petitioners by regular appointment as the petitioners have completed more than 8 years of continuous service and any other order as deem fit be passed and the exercise may be completed within stipulated period of one month.

And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause then the rule be made absolute by issuing writ(s)/direction(s) and any other order as deem fit be passed.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

2. Sum and substance in filing the writ petition, there is challenge to order at Annexure-4 being passed by Competent Authority based on a direction of disposal of the previous writ petition, vide W.P.(C) No.17689 of 2015. Challenge to Annexure-4 is made solely on the premises that when there is a Tripartite Settlement dated 8th June, 2010, binding on all the parties, pursuant to the same and for the condition at Clause-6 therein, the petitioners have already been directed to appear in a Written Test, result of which being declared under Annexure-1 declaring all the petitioners to have qualified in the Written Test, further asking these petitioners to appear in a viva-voce test again in terms of Clause-6 of the Tripartite Settlement and allowing the petitioners to appear in the viva-voce test, if the Authorities are justified in considering the case of the petitioners for regularization taking into consideration the decision in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and rejecting the claim of the petitioners vide Annexure-4? It is in the above circumstance, Sri Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there has been total non-application of mind by the Competent Authority and in spite of admitted material facts on existing of a Tripartite Settlement binding on all parties for the communication of the same vide Annexure-1 and the subsequent development allowing these petitioners to appear in viva-voce test and viva-voce test being conducted there was no scope on the part for the Competent Authority to take up the case in the light of observation in the case of Umadevi (supra). Sri Dora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners thus prayed to set aside Annexure-4 and issuing appropriate direction.

3. Sri Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties on reiteration of the plea taken in the Counter Affidavit contended that for the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court involving regularization of temporary employees, the Authority did not commit any wrong in considering the case in applying such decision. He however did not dispute to the existence of the Tripartite Settlement between the parties. There is also no denial to the fact that following the terms in Clause-6 therein conducting a Written Test involving the petitioners and also the plea in paragraph-9 of the Writ Petition that in the meantime, the viva-voce test of the successful candidates including the petitioners has already taken place in the meantime. Sri Mishra however submitted that for the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Authorities are unable to proceed in the matter of outcome in the viva- voce test.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds undisputedly there exists a Tripartite Settlement between the parties in the benefit of the petitioners for the nature of the settlement u/s.18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there should not be any doubt that it