Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Km. Sunita Rani Gupta and Shri V.R. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Ratan and Shri Piyush Bhargava for the respondents.

2. The ‘Hawkins Cookers Mazdoor Union Sathariya, Jaunpur’ has filed this writ petition through its President Shri Kamalapati Tripathi for quashing the order dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur on a representation made by ‘Hawkins Cookers Limited’-respondent No. 4 (the management) to set aside the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaunpur. By an amendment allowed by this Court on 16.12.2005, the petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Varanasi.

3. The petitioner is a registered Union of the workmen affiliated with ‘Centre of Indian Trade Union’ (CITU), a Central Federation of Trade Unions. The Union submitted a demand letter dated 3.2.2004 to the management for proper classification of the charge-sheets, suspension and punishment orders against the workmen who had taken part in trade union activities to increase the wages; dearness allowance; house rent allowance; leave travel allowance etc., on which the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaunpur submitted a report to the Additional Labour Commissioner, Varanasi. The management raised an objection that the conciliation proceedings should be held before Additional Labour Commissioner, Varanasi.

4. It is alleged that the management prepared a settlement on 28.4.2005 with signatures of the authorised representative of the management and 8 workmen as representative of the workmen and displayed a notice on 29.4.2005 on the notice board stating that all the workmen desirous of obtaining benefits of the settlement should sign the settlement available with the Personnel Manager/General Manager (Administration). The notice was again displayed on 12.5.2005 and on 19.6.2005.

5. The settlement dated 28.4.2005 was presented in the conciliation proceedings on 24.5.2005 for registration. The petitioner filed its objections on 4.7.2005. The application for registration was rejected by Additional Labour Commissioner with the findings that the settlement is not in accordance with Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act).

6. The management, instead of challenging the order rejecting the registration of settlement, preferred a representation to the Labour Commissioner, U.P. During the pendency of the matter with the Labour Commissioner, U.P. a group of 14 workmen sent a complaint to Additional Labour Commissioner that they do not agree with the terms of settlement. The Labour Commissioner, however, after the issuing notice and hearing the petitioner, rejected the preliminary objections that the Labour Commissioner is not the appellate authority against the refusal of registration by the Conciliation Officer. He observed that the union was not in a position to explain whether the settlement could be signed only by President/General Secretary of the Union and not by the workmen. The Commissioner thereafter recorded a finding that out of 236 workmen, 120 have signed the settlement, which is more than half of the total strength, and that the majority of workmen are in favour of settlement which is for their benefits and was pasted on the notice board for information to all the workmen. The Labour Commissioner set aside the order of the Additional Labour Commissioner and directed him to register the agreement under Section 6-B (3) of the Act.

7. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated by Shri V.C. Mahendru, Senior General Manager of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. that the ‘bi-partite settlement between the Hawkins and the eight representatives of the workmen dated 28.4.2005 was individually signed by majority of 120 workmen out of 237 workmen as on that date and was registered by the Additional Labour Commiss