ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to quash an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur, on 4th October, 1966. By the impugned order an application made by the petitioner for computation of benefit under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed. The petitioners claim was that the parties had entered into a settlement before the Conciliation Board, Kanpur in Case No. 94 of 1964 which had not been given effect to. The employers, on the other hand, contend-that they had fully implemented the settlement. The Presiding Officer held that the employers implemented the settlement. He further found that the settlement arrived at during the conciliation proceedings was not published by the State Government under Section 7 (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The settlement which has not been so enforced by the State Government could not be binding on the parties legally, and furnish a cause of action for an objection under Section 6-H (2). At best the matter could be raised in the form of an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the Act. 2. In my opinion the latter finding of the Presiding Officer is sound. The purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act is also to introduce the State Government in industrial adjudications. Under Section 7 (2) the State Government has been given the power to enforce an agreement reached in conciliation proceedings for the purposes contemplated by Section 3. The purposes contemplated by Section 3 inter alia are prohibition of strikes or lock-outs generally or in connection with any industrial dispute, and, to require employers, workmen or both to observe the prescribed terms and conditions of employment. A settlement in respect of the conditions of service of a workman would be in relation to a purpose mentioned in Section 3. Such a settlement can be enforced under Section 7 (2). Under Section 7 (2) the State Government has power to enforce the settlement for such period as it may specify. Thus, the mere existence of a settlement does not conclude the matter. It becomes enforceable by force of the order of the State Government under Section 7 (2). Till the State Government chooses to enforce it under that provision, a settlement or an agreement reached in conciliation proceedings would not be deemed enforceable. 3. Thus, the mere existence of a settlement does not conclude the matter. It becomes enforceable by force of the order of the State Government under Section 7 (2). Till the State Government chooses to enforce it under that provision, a settlement or an agreement reached in conciliation proceedings would not be deemed enforceable. 3. Proceedings under Section 6-H (which is identical to Section 33-C of the Central Industrial Disputes Act) are in their true nature and character execution proceeding See Bombay Gas Co. v. Gopal Bhiva, (1963) 2 Lab LJ 608 : (A.I.R. 1964 SC 752). They pre-suppose an enforceable settlement and provide the procedure for its execution. In my opinion till a settlement is enforceable, it cannot be executed under Section 6-H. The labour Court was right in dismissing the petitioners application on the ground that the petitioners claim about settlement was not enforceable in law. 4. For the petitioner reliance was placed upon Natwar Lal v. Municipality, A.I.R. 1966 Guj 15. This case is not applicable at all. There it was held that a settlement arrived at under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act would be governed by the industrial law and not by the provisions of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 5. For the petitioner reliance was also placed on Public Prosecutor v. Mettur Industrials Ltd., A.I.R. 1961 Mad 20. In that case it was held that an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On its becoming enforceable the parties become liable under the award. If the award has not been given effect to, the defaulting party would even become liable to prosecution. On this authority it could be said that after an award becomes enforceable its non-compliance would entail penalties mentioned in the Act. After an award becomes enforceable it can be executed in the manner provided by the Industrial Disputes Act. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to go into the merits of the other finding that the employers had implemented the settlement. 6. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.