Honble Tarun Agarwala, J.—A settlement between the employers and its Union was arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and was duly registered under Section 6-B (3) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act on 3.8.2004. Under this settlement various demands of the Union were met and granted but one of the demands, namely, that the workers, who had worked for more than 5 years should be kept in skilled category was not conceded by the employer, and in view of the other demands being accepted by the employer, this demand was taken back by the Union and it was agreed that this issue would not be raised during the period of the operation of the settlement. The settlement also contemplated the terms recorded in the settlement would remain in operation for a period of three years from the date of its registration.

2. Inspite of the aforesaid settlement, the Union raised a dispute and eventually, the State Government by an order dated 30.9.2005 referred two disputes under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut. The terms of the reference order was—

“(1) whether the employers were justified in not giving the designation and pay scale on the post of operator to the 111 workers working on the post of Assistant Operator, technician, etc.

(2) whether the employers were justified in terminating the service of two workers, namely, Shri Nirdosh Kumar Sharma and Smt. Neelam Sharma w.e.f. 5.3.2005 and Shri Jagdish Sharma w.e.f. 20.9.2005? if not to what relief are they entitled to ?

3. The petitioner is the employer and has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the reference order made by the State Government. The short submission raised in this petition is, whether such a reference could be made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act ? Whether any industrial dispute existed when the matter was settled through a settlement which was duly registered under Section 6-B of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act ?

4. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddhartha, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a controversy had been settled and was duly registered under the provision of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the subject matter of the dispute could not be referred for adjudication before the Labour Court or Tribunal during the validity period of the settlement. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Union that the settlement was not complied by the employer, and therefore, the dispute was referred for adjudication.

6. In my view, the State Government committed a manifest error in referring the first dispute to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. A settlement is defined under Section 2(t) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and includes a written agreement between the employer and the workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings where such an agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such a manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the State Government and the Conciliation Officer.

7. Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act reads as under :-

"6-B. Settlement outside conciliation proceedings.—(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the Court of conciliation proceedings shall except as provided in sub-section (4), be binding on the parties to the agreement;

Provided that if the period for which a settlement shall remain in force has not been laid down in such settlement itself, it shall remain in force for one year from the date of its registration.

(2) As soon as settlement referred to in sub-section (1) has been arrived at, the parties to the settlement or any one