Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vijay Khanduri, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner union moved an application before the Secretary, Ministry of Labour highlighting the grievances of its members against the employer, namely, M/s Divya Pharmacy, Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Kankhal, Haridwar respondent no. 4 with regard to payment of minimum wages to be paid to the workers. A carbon copy of that letter was also sent to the Conciliation Officer. On the basis of this complaint, a notice dated 07th May, 2005 was issued by the Conciliation Officer directing the parties to appear before him on 13.05.2005. This issuance of notice was the start of the initiation of the conciliation proceedings. The conciliation proceedings eventually culminated on 21.05.2005 when a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the employer. The settlement was arrived at in terms of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and was signed in Form I as prescribed under the Rules.

3. The settlement contemplated that the status of 05.05.2005 will be restored between the parties and that the employees of the petitioner union will end their agitation and maintain discipline and that the employer would take no action against the workers and that the workers would be paid the salary of April, 2005. Inspite of the settlement, it is alleged that the employer backtracked on the settlement which led to further agitations, dharnas, etc., including destruction of property. Since the settlement was not enforced, the petitioner made a representation before the authorities for the enforcement of the settlement. When their plea fell on deaf ears, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.1551/2005 (M/S) before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to enforce the settlement dated 21.05.2005. This court, by a judgment dated 10.04.2006, disposed of the writ petition directing respondent nos.1, 2 & 3, namely, the State of Uttaranchal through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun, the District Magistrate, Haridwar and the Conciliation Officer to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

4. Pursuant to the order of this court, the Conciliation Officer passed an order dated 30.08.2006 holding that the settlement dated 21.05.2006 cannot be enforced as there is bad blood between the parties and that neither of the parties are prepared to accept the demands of the other party. The Conciliation Officer, consequently, recommended that the dispute be referred for adjudication under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pursuant to the order of the Conciliation Officer dated 30.08.2006, the State Government issued an order dated 06.09.2006 under Section 4-K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referring the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani.

5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Conciliation Officer dated 30.08.2006 and by the order of the State Government dated 06.09.2006 referring the dispute for adjudication, has filed the present writ petition.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once a settlement was arrived at between the parties during the conciliation proceedings, the same became enforceable in law and the matter could not be referred for adjudication again before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award was liable to be enforced in consonance with the provision of Rule 5 of the Rules read with Section 7 of the U