ORDER G.C. Mathur, J. - The Western India Match Oo. Ltd., Bareilly, (hereinafter referred to as The Management) employs a large number of workmen. The workmen have formed two trade unions, namely, the Wimco Workers Union (hereinafter called the Union) and the Matches Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter referred to as the Sangh). There is some dispute as to the actual membership of each trade union; but it does appear that a sizeable number (workmen are members of the Union and of the Sangh. These two trade unions had separately sad several industrial disputes. Some of which are pending conciliation and others were pending adjudication. 2. In the year 1964-65 the Sangh had elected an executive committee of 25 persons with Rama Shankar Agarwal as President, Rama Prakash (respondent No. 5) as General Secretary, Abdul Majid as Joint Secretary and Mushtaqullah Khan as one of the members. According to the petitioners, no proper election was held for the year 1965-66 but a bogus and surreptitious election was held by Ram Prakash on June 19, 1965 at which a new executive committee was purported to be elected with Mushtaqullah Khan as President, Abdul Majid as one of the Vice-Presidents and Ram Prakash as General Secretary. On June 29, 1965, Rama Shanker Agarwal made a representation to the Registrar of Trade Unions that the elections held on June 19, 1965, were invalid and requested him to make an inquiry into the matter and not to register the names of the new office bearers. The Registrar held an inquiry and by order dated November 26, 1965, he refused to recognise the new office bearers and directed a fresh election to be held. 3. In the meantime, the Union had raised an industrial dispute regarding the revision of wages of the workmen working on the Splint Peeling and Splint Chopping machines and the matter was referred to the Conciliation Board at Bareilly for conciliation. During the course of Conciliation proceedings, the Management and the Union arrived at a comprehensive settlement settling all disputes; whether pending conciliation or pending adjudication. During the course of Conciliation proceedings, the Management and the Union arrived at a comprehensive settlement settling all disputes; whether pending conciliation or pending adjudication. On September 24, 1965, Ram Prakash, purporting to act as the General Secretary of the Sangh, made an application on behalf of the Sangh to the Conciliation Board, stating that the Sangh had come to know of the terms of the settlement which were acceptable to it in to and prayed that the Sangh be also, impleaded as a party to the settlement. This application was allowed and, on the same day, a settlement was arrived at between the management, the Union and the Sangh and signed by the parties and by the Chairman of the Conciliation Board. On behalf of the Sangh it was signed by Mushtaqullah Khan as President, Abdul Majid as Vice-President and Ram Prakash as General Secretary. 4. In this writ petition, the validity of this settlement is challenged on the following two-main grounds, namely, 1. that Ram Prakash had no authority to action behalf of The Sangh, that the Sangh was not properly and legally made a party to the conciliation proceedings and that The persons, who purported to sign the settlement on behalf of the Sangh, had no authority to do so; and 2. that a settlement in conciliation proceedings can only be in respect of a dispute referred for conciliation and between the parties to that dispute. The two specific reliefs that have been prayed for are - 1. the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the settlement dated September 24, 1965; and 2. the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh not to enforce the settlement dated September 24, 1965. 5. Counter-affidavits have been filed by the Management, by the three persons who have signed the settlement on behalf of the Sangh, by the Union and by the Regional Conciliation Officer who was the Chairman of the Conciliation Board. In all these counter-affidavits, it is asserted that the settlement is a good and valid settlement binding on all the parses. 5. Counter-affidavits have been filed by the Management, by the three persons who have signed the settlement on behalf of the Sangh, by the Union and by the Regional Conciliation Officer who was the Chairman of the Conciliation Board. In all these counter-affidavits, it is asserted that the settlement is a good and valid settlement binding on all the parses. The stand taken is that Rim Prakash was competent to represent the Sangh, that the non-recognition of the office bearers elected on June 19, 1965 by the Registrar of Trade Unions did not have The effect of setting aside the elections, that, in any case, Ram Prakash was continuing as General Secretary from 1964-65 and could act as such, that the settlement was in the best interest of the parties, that benefits under it had been accepted by almost all the workmen and that it had been arrived at and signed in accordance with the provisions of law. 6. The petitioners' contention that a settlement in the course of conciliation proceedings must be confined to The dispute referred for conciliation does not appear to be sound. There is nothing in the Act or in the rules to support the contention. On the other hand, such a settlement will be in the interest of industrial peace and harmony. In any case, since the Management and the Union are abiding by the settlement, it is valid and binding so far as they ate concerned. The only question that can arise is whether the settlement is binding on the Sangh or not and whether The Sangh can obtain any relief in this petition. 7. In my opinion, in this writ petition, no declaration can be given that the Sangh is not bound by the settlement, nor can the reliefs prayed for be granted. The first relief prayed for is the quashing of the settlement by a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari. During arguments, Sri S.C. Khare for the petitioners contended that, if this relief could not be granted, then a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus may be issued for quashing the settlement. Certiorari is available only against judicial or quasi-judicial orders and mandamus against executive or administrative action or inaction A settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings is the act of private parties, the Management aDd workmen. Certiorari is available only against judicial or quasi-judicial orders and mandamus against executive or administrative action or inaction A settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings is the act of private parties, the Management aDd workmen. In conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Board is not required to decide anything or to pass any order. Its function is merely to assist or induce the parties to come to an amicable settlement. It does not perform any judicial or quasi-judicial function. In Employees in the Caltex (India) Ltd. v. Commr. of Labour and Conciliation Officer. 1959 (1) Lab LJ 520 : ( AIR 1959 Mad 441 ), which was a ease under the Central Indus, trial Disputes Act and where the facts were similar to those in the case before me, it was observed by Balakriahna Iyyer, J. : " A writ of certiorari can issue only in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial act and I am unable to persuade myself that when acting under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, a conciliation officer is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner. No doubt, there are opposing parties and various points at issues between them. But the Conciliation Officer is not competent to hear a decide any of them. All he can do is to try to persuade the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement. The Act gives him power to "do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute." His duties are to induce or persuade; he has no power to decide anything at all. He can appeal to their good sens or to their sense of patriotism or to their self-interest, within reasonable limits he may also remonstrate will them he may invite them to lake into consideration the temper of public opinion or the hardships that the public may be put to. In fact, the matter is left entirely to be resourcefulness and powers of persuasiveness. In fact, the matter is left entirely to be resourcefulness and powers of persuasiveness. How the discharge of such duties can be regarded as judicial oil quasi-judicial, it is hard to see." It is also difficult to see how the circumstance that they Conciliation Officer has signed at the foot of the agreement, and the agreement purports to be one under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial disputes Act can be regarded as any kind of order or decision. It is not, therefore, susceptible to correction by certiorari." This decision was followed by the Kerala High Court in Workmen of Standard Furniture Co. Ltd. v. District Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer, (1966) 1 Lab LJ 236 (Ker). What was said by Balakrishna Ayyer, J., in respect of the functions of The Conciliation Officer under the Central Act is equally true of The functions of the Conciliation Board under the U.P. Act The impugned settlement cannot be equated with judicial or quasi-judicial order and is not amenable to a writ of certiorari. For the same reason, since the settlement is not the act of the Conciliation Board but private parties, it cannot be called an executive or administrative act. At writ of mandamus also cannot be issued to quash the settlement. In my judgment, the impugned settlement cannot be reached directly by writs, directions or orders either in the nature of certiorari or mandamus. 8. The second relief prayed for in this writ petition is that the State Government may be restrained by a writ of mandamus from enforcing the settlement. Section 7 (ii) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which empowers the State Government to enforce an agreement or settlement, stands thus ; "7. Without prejudice to the generality of the powers vesting under the provisions of this Act, the State Government may, by order, for the purpose contemplated in Section 3 - (i)...................... (ii) enforce in The prescribed manner for such period as may be specified, The whole or any part of an agreed reached in conciliation proceedings between the pities to an industrial dispute." In my opinion, the second relief prayed for also cannot be granted. In the first place, there is no application that the State Government is going to enforce the agreement. In the first place, there is no application that the State Government is going to enforce the agreement. The case of the Management and the Union is that the settlement has already been implemented and there is no question of its enforcement by the State Government. Secondary, a writ of mandamus is not anticipatory toil cannot be issued to restrain an executive or administrative authority from exorcising a statutory power. Mandamus can only be issued if the authority has either acted in a manner not permitted by the statute or has refused to perfect a duty cast upon it by the statute. Lastly, Section 7 gives a discretion to the State Government to enforce the settlement and it is for the State Government itself to see whether the settlement such as should be enforced under Section 7 (ii) or not. For these reasons, in my opinion, the second relief prayed for in this writ petition also cannot be granted. 9. What the Sangh really wants is a declaration that the settlement dated September 24, 1965, does not bind it. Such a relief can only be obtained in a declaratory suit. The jurisdiction not this Court in relation to writs cannot be availed of for that purpose. The impugned settlement cannot be directly challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may also be open to the petitioners to raise an Industrial dispute if and whom the Management enforces the terms of the settlement against the Sangh or against any of its members and therein allonge the validity and binding nature of the settlement. 10. The reliefs prayed for cannot be granted in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed, In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.