The validity and binding nature of settlements reached outside conciliation proceedings under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.

D. P. Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. This petition is directed against an order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 27.2.1998 by which it has recorded a finding that a settlement dated 5.4.1975 was reached outside conciliation proceedings.

3. Brief facts for decision of this petition are that in 1969, 110 workers were promoted as fitters grade ‘A’. Subsequently another batch of 218 fitters were also promoted as fitters grade ‘A’. It appears that pay revision became effective from 1.10.1973 and thus the second batch of fitters approached the management for determination of their promotion in order to get the benefit of their pay revision in the original cadre of fitters grade ‘B’. This demand was accepted by the management on the basis of a settlement dated 5.4.1975 whereby the date of promotion of these 218 workmen was deferred to 1.10.1973 conferring the benefits of wage revision. The result was that even though the first batch of 110 workers who were though promoted in 1969 were put to a disadvantage in that they began drawing lesser wages than the latter batch of fitters. The Union took up this matter since no amicable settlement could be reached, upon a failure report the matter was referred under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act which was registered as adjudication case No. 260 of 1982 where the following reference was made :

“Kya sewayojakon dwara parishist men ullakhit 110 karmchari jo fitter grade ‘A’ ke pad par karyarat hain unka vetan unse junior grade ‘A’ ke karmchari ke saman na kiya jana uchit tatha vaidhanik hai. Yadi nahin to sambandhit sharamik vikas labh/anutosh (Relief) pane ke adhikari hain. Evam kis anya vivran sahit?”

4. After exchange of pleadings an award was rendered on 9.6.1987 holding that the first batch of 110 workmen who were promoted in 1969 were entitled to the same and equal pay as that which was being given to the 218 worker. This award was subjected to a challenge in the present petition which was allowed vide order and judgment dated 23.10.1989 holding that in view of the settlement dated 5.4.1975, which was entered between the management and the Union and which was never challenged by the first batch of workmen, no reference under Section 4K could have been made. The workmen preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which after hearing the parties vide its order dated 18.10.1995 was of the opinion that if the settlement was reached outside conciliation, it would not bind them and the reference, therefore, would be valid. As, from the record, it was not clear as to whether the settlement was reached during conciliation it remitted this issue to the Tribunal to be decided after giving both the parties opportunity to adduce their evidence on the said issue. The Tribunal vide its order dated 27.2.1998 came to the conclusion that the said settlement was outside conciliation proceedings and remitted the findings to the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide its order dated 15.5.1998 set aside the judgment of this Court dated 23.10.1989 and remanded the matter to this Court to decide this writ petition afresh, in the light of the order of the Tribunal.

5. This is how the writ petition has to be decided yet again.

6. At the very threshold the counsel for the workmen has contended that a joint reading of the two orders of the Apex Court dated 18.10.1995 and 15.5.1998 would show that there was no scope of any interference in this petition as the only consequence of the two order was that the settlement would not bind the workmen, and as such this petition should be rejected. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that at no point of time she was given any opportunity by the Apex Court to challenge the validity of the findings of the Tribunal dated 27.2.1998 and as such this is the first opportunity where she can challenge it.

7. The Apex Court, though in its order dated 18.10.1995 had opined that if the agreement was i