Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union under the Trade Union Act. The petitioner No. 2 is its President. In 2004, the Union submitted a charter of demands and one such demand was revision of the wages. Negotiations were going on, and it is alleged, that the employers were deliberately delaying the settlement proceedings for vested reasons. On 28th April, 2005, a vague settlement was arrived at between the management and 120 workers out of a total strength of 236 workers on the rolls. This settlement was presented for registration under Section 6-B of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). The Conciliation Officer/the Assistant Labour Commissioner, by an order of 08th July 2005 refused to register the settlement. The management being aggrieved, made a representation to the Labour Commissioner, who by an order dated 23rd September, 2005 directed the Conciliation Officer to register the settlement. The petitioner, who is the registered trade union, being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Commissioner, filed writ petition No. 64192 of 2005.

2. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, 63 more workers also joined the settlement and started getting the benefit of the pay revision. The writ petition was eventually allowed by a judgment dated 7th August, 2007, which decision is reported in 2007 (7) ADJ 540. The Writ Court quashed the order of the Conciliation Officer dated 08th July, 2005 as well as the order of the Labour Commissioner dated 23rd September, 2005, and directed the Conciliation Officer to reconsider the matter after holding an enquiry as provided under Rule 27 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that the labour Court was not sitting in an appellate jurisdiction and had no power to issue such directions. The Court further held that the Conciliation Officer was required to make a limited enquiry under Rule 27 in order to find out, as to whether the settlement was valid and that is was not brought about as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation or violation or on public ground affecting social justice.

3. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, 37 out of 120 workers, who had originally signed the settlement and 55 out of 63 workers, who had subsequently joined the settlement, filed an application before the Conciliation Officer giving reasons for accepting the settlement under certain circumstances, and at the same time, contending that the settlement should also be signed by the trade union. The workers contended that in the given circumstances the validity of the settlement be examined by the Conciliation Officer.

4. It transpires that the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner made an enquiry contemplated under Rule 27 of the Rules and, by an order dated 24th October, 2007, held that there has been no misrepresentation, fraud or collusion and that there is nothing to indicate a breach of social justice. The authority further found that 183 workers out of the total strength of 232 workers had accepted the settlement and had also availed the benefit flowing from the settlement. The Conciliation Officer, accordingly, passed an order directing that the settlement should be registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The trade union, being aggrieved, by this order, has filed the writ petition No. 60423 of 2007.

5. The settlement dated 28th April, 2005 was for a period of 3 years, which was coming to an end. The trade union submitted a fresh charter of demands, which led to certain negotiations and, eventually another settlement dated 29th September, 2008 was arrived at between the management and 119 workers. This settlement was presented again before the Conciliation Officer for registration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Conciliation Officer, after due enquiry, issued an order dated 18.11.2008, accepting the settlement and directing its registration. The trade u