ORDER : This Writ Petition is directed against the award of the Arbitrator under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The issue referred to the Arbitrator was : Whether the demand of the workmen of M/s. Hindusthan Paper Corporation Ltd. working in the Calcutta office other than those who have been transferred from Delhi to Calcutta, the pay and house rent allowance at the rate applicable to those who have been posted from Delhi to Calcutta is justified? If so, to what relief are workmen concerned entitled and from which date? 2. Hindusthan Paper Corporation Ltd was incorporated on May 29, 1979 under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Vishal Bhawan, 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi and is a company within the meaning of S. 617 of the Companies Act. On 6th September 1968, the Director of Bureau of Public Enterprises issued instructions in regard to the payment of house rent allowance to the employees employed by different Central Government Enterprises whereby the ceiling of house rent allowance was fixed at 25% of the basic pay over and above 10% to be borne by the employees stationed at the major cities of Delhi, Calcutta and Madras In Bombay the said ceiling of house rent was fixed at 30% of pay for all employees Subsequently, however, the said bureau enhanced the rate of house rent allowance in Delhi up to 30% by another circular dated 16th September 1971. The rate of house rent for Calcutta and Madras remained the same. 3. Prior to 1976 the Head Office of the Corporation was located at New Delhi. In 1976 the Central Government having regard to the fact that the major activities of the Corporation in the matter of setting up paper mills being in the Eastern India decided that the corporate office of the Corporation should be shifted to Calcutta for convenience of operation and effiective achievement of the Corporation's objective. Though the registered office was retained at New Delhi In accordance with the said decision the Board of Directors of the Corporation at their 30lh meeting held on 19th March 1976 approved shifting of various departments to Calcutta along with its top managerial personnel. In the Course of time some other divisions and departments were also transferred to Calcutta for administrative convenience. 4. In the Course of time some other divisions and departments were also transferred to Calcutta for administrative convenience. 4. Although the house rent allowance payable to the employees of the Central Government Enterprises located in Calcutta were recommended by the Bureau of Public Enterprises at 25% of the basic pay, the Corporation decided to pay house rent allowance to the employees who were transferred from Delhi to Calcutta at 30% of the maximum of their pay scale which they were enjoying in Delhi. The Corporation further decided that the employees who would be locally required would be paid house rent allowance at the rate directed by the Bureau of Public Enterprises, namely, 25% of the basic pay After shifting of the office to Calcutta the Corporation recruited various categories of employees including non-executive cadre and the newly recruited member of the staff were paid house rent allowance @ 25% of the basic pay. 5. In August 1978 the Hindusthan Paper Corporation's Staff Association raised a demand that the employees recruited in Calcutta susequent to the shifting of office of the Corporation should also be paid house rent allowance @ 30% of their basic pay in order to bring a parity amongst the employees. 6. After long negotiation, a settlement was reached which was signed by the representatives of the Association and those of the Corporation on 20th September 1978. Clauses 2 3 and 2 4 of the said settlement provide that on the request of H. P. E. A. the C M D of the Corporation has made a reference to the Hon'ble Minister of Industries seeking his intervention al a special case to have the discrimination eliminated and the management and the association agreed to honour the decision of the ministry in this regard By a memorandum dated 16th May 1979 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, however, intimated the Chairman-cum-Managing Director that the proposal for increase of house rent allowance of the Calcutta based employees of the said Corporation has been re-examined but it was not found acceptable to the Government. Subsequently, however, agitation were launched by the Employees' Association but the Corporation refused to enter into negotiation with the said association in view of the express agreement dated 20th September 1978. Subsequently, however, agitation were launched by the Employees' Association but the Corporation refused to enter into negotiation with the said association in view of the express agreement dated 20th September 1978. Thereafter various legal proceedings were had between the parties including a suit filed by the association in the City Civil Court at Calcutta Subsequently however, the Corporation agreed to refer the matter of house rent allowance to respondent no 3 for adjudication under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act and agreed that the decision of the Arbitrator shall be binding on the Corporation. It is in pursuance of the said agreement that the Arbitrator has passed his award and held that the demand is justified and the said workmen are entitled to relief of payment of house rent allowance at 30% of the maximum of their scale of pay as done in the case of employees transferred from Delhi to Calcutta subject to normal zones followed for production of rent receipts. The Arbitrator held further that the said relief should be given to the eligible employees with effect from 1st January, 1980. 7. Mr. Jatin Ghosh, counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since an agreement was entered into by and between the management and the Association recording that the Government's decision in regard to the proposal for house rent allowance would be binding on all concerned, the Association cannot retract from the same and as a matter of fact the entire order of reference and the award under S. 19(a) of the Act is void and initio. 8. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines settlement which means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer. 9. Section 18(1) provides that a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in couree of conciliation proceedings shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. 10. 9. Section 18(1) provides that a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in couree of conciliation proceedings shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. 10. Section 19 provides that a settlement shall come into operation on such dale as is agreed upon by the parties to the dispute and if no date is agreed upon, on the date on Which the memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute, Sub-section 2 of S. 19 provides that such settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties and if no such period is agreed upon, for a period of six months from the date on which the memorandam of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute, and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the period aforesaid, until the expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement. 11. Mr. Ghosh contended that there is in fact no notice of termination of agreement and in the absence of which the termination of the agreement cannot be presumed and as such the entire reference is Void ab initio. Mr. Ghosh in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Ltd v. Workmen reported in AIR 1968 SC 585 . In the decision Supreme Court observed that an intimation regarding the termination of award must be fixed with reference to a particular date so as to enable a Court to come to the conclusion that the party given that intimation has expressed its intention to terminate the award Such a certainty regarding date is absolutely essential because the period of two months after the expiry of which the award will cease to be binding on the parties will have to be reckoned from the date of such clear intimation. The Supreme Court while dealing with the said matter also considered the decision in the case of Workmen of Western India Match Company reported in AIR 1966 SC 976 . The Supreme Court while dealing with the said matter also considered the decision in the case of Workmen of Western India Match Company reported in AIR 1966 SC 976 . The said two decisions were also considered by this Court in the case of A.I.G. Mills Company v. 5th Industrial Tribunal reported in AIR 1971 Calcutta 7 While dealing with toe said decision T. K. Basu, J. observed that the Supreme Court decision reported in 1968 SC 585 seems to be a clear authority for the proposition that the intimation to terminate a settlement whether it is by a formal notice in writing or it is to be spelt out from correspondence must be certain so as to the particular date on which such a termination is to taka effect. It is vitally necessary because the court has to fix the period of two months with reference to S. 19(2) of the Act after which the settlement ceases to be binding on the parties. 12. Mr. P. K. Chatterjee appearing for the union however submitted that since the requirement of Rule 68(3) of the West Bengal Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been fulfilled the settlement, in any event, has no binding effect and S. 19 has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the case Rule 68(3) provides :- "Where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and his workman/work men otherwise than in course of conciliation proceeding before a Board or Conciliation Officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department and the Conciliation Officer concerned, either by registered post with acknowledgement due or by personal service upon receipt, during the hours respectively fixed for the purpose by the officers concerned". 13. It is to be noted in this context that this submission of Mr. Chatterjee has no foundation. Neither in the written statement filed before the Tribunal nor in the affidavit filed before this Court this contention was raised. Accordingly, it is not possible to permit this argument to be raised now. In any event consideration of this submission of Mr. Chatterjee involve enquiry of facts, which I am not inclined to embark upon at this stage of the proceeding. 14. Mr. Accordingly, it is not possible to permit this argument to be raised now. In any event consideration of this submission of Mr. Chatterjee involve enquiry of facts, which I am not inclined to embark upon at this stage of the proceeding. 14. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that admittedly after the settlement in regard to the revision of house rent allowance, the respondent association started resorting to various demands and in September 1982 members of the association also resorted to various demonstration. 15. Mr. Chatterjee also referred to the second charter of demand submitted to the writ petitioner in June 1983 and contended that all these facts taken together would unmistakably evince an intention on the part of the respondent that the agreement has come to an end. Referring to tee Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1968 SC 585 Mr. Chatterjee submitted that intimation to terminate settlement may be arrived at by a formal notice in writing or may be spelt out from the correspondence and as such the conduct of the respondents itself goes to show that the respondents were proceeding that the agreement was no longer in existence and has been terminated It is now however well settled that mere serving of a charter of demand by Workers' Union on employer will not by itself show that there was termination. The fact of the workers going on strike subsequently nor the fact of employers' participation in further agreement is of any relevance. [See in this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Lte. v. Workmen and Another reported in AIR 1973 SC 2272 ] 16. In that view of the matter I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chatterjee. 17. Mr. Chatterjee lastly contended that in any event filing of the suit before the City Civil Court, Calcutta should be treated as a notice of termination, while it is true that filing of a suit may sometimes be treated as a notice, but in the facts this case and on consideration of the averments in the plaint tiled in Title Suit No 2036 of 1980, the contention of Mr. Chatterjee cannot be justified and as such this contention of Mr. Chatterjee also fails. 18. Chatterjee cannot be justified and as such this contention of Mr. Chatterjee also fails. 18. In the premises, I am of the view that termination of the agreement dated 20th September, 1978 has not been proved with certainty as regards the date of such termination and as such further reference under S. 10(a) of the Act is incompetent In the result this application succeeds. The award passed under S. 10A is set aside. There will not however any order as to costs. Application allowed; award set aside.