JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner is a private limited company. On 23rd August, 1970, a settlement was arrived at between the management of the petitioner company and is workmen in relation to certain disputes between them. On that date there were 56 workmen on the muster roll of the company. One workman was absent. The remaining 55 workmen signed the settlement. It has not been disputed that this settlement was arrived at a time when no conciliation proceedings were pending, and without the intervention of any Conciliation Officer. The management of the petitioner company reduced the settlement in the Prescribed Form No. 1 of the schedule to the Rules framed under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and submitted it for registration before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Varanasi. This was done after complying with the requisite formalities of affixing the settlement on the notice board of the company for the prescribed period. On 7th October, 1970, the Regional Conciliation Officer passed an order, which is now impugned, refusing to register the agreement on the ground that the agreement did not comply with the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 2. Section 6-B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act provides for settlement outside conciliation proceedings. Under sub-section (2) thereof any party to a settlement may apply to the Conciliation Officer of the area concerned in the prescribed manner for registration of the settlement. Under sub-section (3) the Conciliation Officer has either to register the settlement in the prescribed manner or refuse registration if he considers it to be inexpedient to do so on public grounds affecting social justice or if the settlement has been brought about as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation. 3. Rule 5 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, relates to memorandum of settlement. Sub-rule (1) provides that a settlement arrived at before a Conciliation Officer or otherwise outside the conciliation proceeding shall be in Form 1. Form 1 provides for giving the names and addresses of the parties and the representative of the employer and the workmen. Then it requires a short recital of the case and the terms of the agreement. The agreement has to be witnessed by two persons and has to be signed by the representatives of the employer and the workmen. Form 1 provides for giving the names and addresses of the parties and the representative of the employer and the workmen. Then it requires a short recital of the case and the terms of the agreement. The agreement has to be witnessed by two persons and has to be signed by the representatives of the employer and the workmen. Below that the form provides for the signature of the Conciliation Officer. 4. Admittedly, everything which was required to be done by Form 1 was complied with by the management and the workmen. The only thing lacking was the signature of the Conciliation Officer. When the Conciliation Officer was the same gentleman before whom the application was presented for registration, it was for him to put his signature on the application in order to complete it. Evidently, the management could not force the Conciliation Officer to sign it. And, the reason is not far to seek. The settlement was arrived at wholly outside conciliation proceedings. The Conciliation Officer had not intervened in these proceedings. Section 6-A requires the Conciliation Officer to satisfy himself that the registration is not liable to be refused on the grounds mentioned in it. It is obvious that the fact that the Conciliation Officer signs the application for registration is likely to mean that he assents to it. Consequently, the management and the workmen could not even ask the Conciliation Officer to sign the application before any one of the parties presents the application for registration. In a case like the present where the settlement is wholly outside the Conciliation Officer's involvement, the signature of the Conciliation Officer could be validly done after the settlement had been presented for registration. The application was not defective for non-compliance with Rule 5(1) and its registration was wrongly refused on such ground. 5. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7th October, 1970, is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Regional Conciliation Officer concerned for disposal of the application for registration in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.