Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ has been filed challenging the award dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra and also praying for writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No. 2 M/s Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., Manzoor Garhi to allow the petitioners to resume duties and to treat them in service with effect from the date of their illegal termination and to give them all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Shri Chandrajeet Yadav, learned Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gaur, Miss. Babita Upadhyay for the petitioners and Shri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working in the establishment of M/s. Glaxo (India) Ltd., Manzoor Garhi, Aligarh, later on acquired by M/s. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. and all the assets and liabilities alongwith workmen were transferred to the respondent No. 2. Since, the workmen, who were engaged in the department of production and retail packing were vocal in raising various demands on behalf of other workers, the management hatched a conspiracy so that all the petitioners alongwith 33 other workmen, who were active in trade union activities, were illegally stopped from working w.e.f. 2.11.1997. No termination order or notice or information was given in writing before such termination. In the last week of November 1997, the petitioners were told that they will be given some additional amount as wages, which they may receive on 27/28th November, 1997.

4. It is alleged that the petitioners and other workmen were asked to sign a typed document in English and were told that the amount which is being given to them was additional wages as demanded by them. The workers signed the said documents without properly understanding its content. Later on, it was revealed to them that the employers had played a fraud upon them and had terminated their services alleging that their claims had been settled by giving monetary compensation. No retrenchment compensation as was due to them was given.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after protests were held and applications were moved before the authorities concerned, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 2(A) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.

6. Similar claims were filed by 14 workmen and the disputes were registered as Adjudication Case Nos. 319 to 332 of 2000. Written statements are filed containing similar pleadings in all such claims by the employers and replications were filed thereafter by the workmen. The workmen also filed an application for summoning certain documents but such application was arbitrarily rejected on 22.5.2003.

It is the case of the petitioners that the following two issues were framed in all the adjudication cases namely :

(i) whether the settlement between the parties is legally binding or not ? if not, its effect ?

(ii) whether the workmen were falling within the definition of workmen under Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ? If not, its effect ?

7. The Labour Court however did not look into the evidence produced by the workmen and failed to consider that the alleged settlement has not been done in accordance of the provisions of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, but has been done under the guise of payment for their claims, which was due to them for past services rendered.

8. It is the case of the counsel for the petitioners that Labour Court failed to decide the crucial question with regard to “settlement” as set up by the employers. “Settlement” can be of two types, one settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and another is a written agreement, which is signed between the employer and workmen outside conciliation proceedings but such written agreement must be signed by the parties in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy of the said agreement must be sent to the State Government and the Conciliation Offi