Short Note : This petition was at the instance of one Badri Singh, who claims himself to be the President of the Rourkela Project Mazdoor Union at Babupur in Satna District. The subject-matter involved in this petition relates to an award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Jabalpur on the basis of a settlement arrived in between the Union and the employer. 2. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the award made by the Tribunal on the basis of the settlement was absolutely illegal and beyond its powers under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The argument was that once a reference has been made under section 10 of the Act to the Tribunal, it had to decide the dispute in its judicial discretion and cannot make an award by adopting certain settlement arrived between the parties. Held : Despite the fact that there was no specific provision authorising the Tribunal to pass an award on the basis of a compromise as is being done in cases under Order 23, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would not be possible to hold that the Industrial Tribunal must insist upon dealing with the dispute on merits even when it is brought to its notice by parties that the same had been amicably settled under a settlement duly arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. As a matter of fact, in respect of the industrial disputes, the primary object is to maintain industrial peace and harmony. If the parties themselves amicably settled the dispute and the settlement so reached appeared to be fairly and justly determining the actual dispute which was referred, we do not find any reason why the Tribunal could not immediately make an award in terms of such settlement, unless it was found that the settlement was vitiated by fraud, collusion or such other reasons. 3. The aforesaid legal position now stands well settled in view of the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 13 of the decision in the case of State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguli and others, AIR 1958 SC 1018 . 3. The aforesaid legal position now stands well settled in view of the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 13 of the decision in the case of State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguli and others, AIR 1958 SC 1018 . Similar view was taken in the case of Sirsilk Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 160 while dealing with a situation where a settlement was arrived between the parties after the award had already been made. In that case it was observed that the only way to reconcile between the settlement and the award was to withhold the publication of the award and to allow the parties to be governed by settlement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that in the present case too the similar course, as was taken in the case of Sital Sukhiram v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court reported in 1969 JLJ 68 : AIR 1969 MP 200 , should have been followed. We have gone through the aforesaid decision and we find that the facts and circumstances of the said case were quite different. In the aforesaid case, the manner in which the 5 disputes already referred were shown and alleged to be amicably settled was not disclosed to the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, it was not possible to hold the said settlement as a determination of the dispute. The settlement arrived at in that case was that on a certain sum having been given by the employer to the Union, the claims of the workers were stated to have been settled. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court was of the opinion that it was not such a settlement which could be held to be fair and just and properly adopted for making the award. In the present case, the settlement has been arrived at and recorded in the prescribed form H (Annexure-J). It deals specifically with the subject-matter of the dispute actually referred. The claim put forth by the Union for claiming the rate at Rs. 13.50 during the period 1-5-1970 to 30-4-1972 was settled at Rs. 12.75. There was settlement in respect of the rates for various other periods also. It further disclosed that the copies of the settlement in the prescribed form were forwarded to the relevant authorities in compliance with the provisions of the rules. 13.50 during the period 1-5-1970 to 30-4-1972 was settled at Rs. 12.75. There was settlement in respect of the rates for various other periods also. It further disclosed that the copies of the settlement in the prescribed form were forwarded to the relevant authorities in compliance with the provisions of the rules. It was signed by the General Secretary of the Union and the rates were stated to be fair and reasonable in the interest of the workers. Under these circumstances, if the Industrial Tribunal adopted the aforesaid settlement and made an award by observing that the same was reasonable and fair to the interest of both the workers and the employer, we do not find any justification for interference by invoking our writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.