P. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) FOR enforcement of the terms of agreement dated June 7, 1982, and July 1, 1982, entered into by the Corporation of Calcutta and their workmen represented by Falta Water Works and Employees Union of Jalkal Road, 2, No. Gate P. O. Barrackpore, 24-Parganas, which is Annexure "c" to the present writ petition, has been moved on behalf of some of the employees who are 69 in number who are all members of the said Union. ( 2 ) AT the time of admission of the writ petition, Mahitosh Majumder, J, of this Court,, having admitted the writ petition after dispensing with the requirement of Rule 27 of the Rules issued Civil Order and also granted interim order, thereby, the petitioners were directed to function under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition has come up for final bearing in the presence of Mr. Rupendra Nath Mitra, Mr. Majibar Rahaman and Mr. Debotosh Khan, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. Mihir Kumar Roy, Mr. S. K. Roy, learned Advocates appearing for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, and was heard in part on July 12, 1990. ( 4 ) MR. Rupendra Nath Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the present writ petitioners, places the following facts for consideration of this Court. ( 5 ) THE petitioners are all workmen at Falta Water Works under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, being the respondent no. 5, and they are discharging their duties at Filter Beds of Falta Water Works under the contract labour system since 1951, and they are all constituents of the Secretary, Filter Beds Falta Water Works Workers and Employees Union, being the respondent no. 4. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, since, installation of filter beds of Falta Water Works these workmen were and are working under different contractors, namely, Messrs. Topnarayan Singh, Nagina Singh and Steelco Palta Water Works. Copy of the list of such contractors including the petitioners are annexed as annexure "a" to the writ petition. According to the petitioners they are working under different contract till May 17, 1988 and from May 18, 1988, they are woring directly under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Topnarayan Singh, Nagina Singh and Steelco Palta Water Works. Copy of the list of such contractors including the petitioners are annexed as annexure "a" to the writ petition. According to the petitioners they are working under different contract till May 17, 1988 and from May 18, 1988, they are woring directly under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. ( 7 ) IT is further the case of the petitioners that there was an Award passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal in case No. 18 of 1960 under the provisions of section 35 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on July 25, 1961 recommending equal wages, leave salaries and other benefits enjoyed by the employees of the Municipal Commissioners of Calcutta Municipal Corporation, being respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1, however, denied the petitioners by not paying Provident Fund, equal wages, leave salaries and other benefits. There was a joint conference held on June. 7, 1982 between the Workers' Union and the Municipal Commissioners, Calcutta Municipal Corporation being the respondent no. 1 and the contractors and the following settlement has been arrived at which is as follows "terms of Settlement. (1) In view of the fact that many of the existing Filter Bed Workers are working for several years under contractor at Falta Water Works, the Corporation authorities, agree to ensure, as far as practicable, that the services of the existing workers will be continued under the next contract. (2) It is also agreed that the Corporation shall ensure that these workmen will be granted pay and other conditions of services enjoyed by the direct workmen of the Corporation doing same or similar nature of job as admissible under the law (including Contract Labour, Regulation and Abolition Act) and Rules made thereunder. (3) The issue of absorption of these workmen in direct Corporation service and other issues of the said Charter of Demands will be processed through conciliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act. "in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at, the Union withdrew the notice of strike dated May 11, 1982 as, it appears, from the memorandum of settlement which is annexure "c" to the writ petition. ( 8 ) THERE was another agreement dated July 1, 1982, whereby, the following terms have been agreed by the parties which is set out hereinbelow"terms of Agreement. 1. ( 8 ) THERE was another agreement dated July 1, 1982, whereby, the following terms have been agreed by the parties which is set out hereinbelow"terms of Agreement. 1. It is agreed by the contractors that the services of the existing workers working at Filter Beds, Palta Water Works must be retained and continued from 1. 7. 82 to 31. 3. 83 (both days inclusive ). 2. It is also agreed that these workers mentioned as above Clause No. 1 will be granted pay and allowances (gross Rs, 470/- P. M.) as admissible and enjoyed by the direct workers of the Calcutta Corporation doing identical or same nature of job and also other facilities as enjoyed by the workers of Calcutta Corporation. " ( 9 ) MR. Rupendra Nath Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits that during the subsistences of the terms of agreement, wherein, the respondent Corporation was a party and the Corporation authority have agreed to ensure "so far as practicable" with the 6 9service of the existing workmen" will. be continued in the next contract and Corporation have ensured that these workmen would be granted pay and other conditions of service enjoyed by the direct workmen of the Corporation performing the same or similar nature of job as admissible under the law (including Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Rules framed thereunder ). ( 10 ) MR. Mitra further submits that the issue of absorption of these workmen directly under the Corporation service and other issues, and the said charter of demand would be processed through concilliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 11 ) HE further submits that during the subsistence of this agreement, which has been arrived at in terms of the provisions of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent Corporation authority is duty bound to pay equal salaries as the direct employees are getting under the Corporation. ( 11 ) HE further submits that during the subsistence of this agreement, which has been arrived at in terms of the provisions of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent Corporation authority is duty bound to pay equal salaries as the direct employees are getting under the Corporation. ( 12 ) HE further submits that the intention of the Corporation to deprive the workmen at par with the direct workmen under the Corporation is nothing but avoidance to follow the terms of agreement, as per annexure "c" to the writ petition, and this Court, in such circumstances, is entitled to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to issue necessary mandate accordingly, for treating the writ petitioners at par with the direct employees of the Corporation and to honour the agreement and not to make any further discrimination. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mitra, the salary of the workmen having been fixed in terms of the agreement at Rs. 470/- per month, it cannot be suggested by any stretch of imagination that the said salary should be static and the petitioners should not be entitled to any increment or other benefits including D. A. etc. as the direct employees are getting under the Corporation. ( 14 ) MR. Mihir Kumar Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation contests the writ petition and relies on the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation on September 26, 1988. ( 15 ) IN the said affidavit-in-opposition the following relevant facts have been stated by the deponent, Ranabir Prosad Choudhuri, Deputy Chief Engineer (Sanitation) under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The said deponent, in dealing with the memorandum of settlement dated June 7, 1988, denied that besides the pay of Rs. 470/- per month the Contract Labours were not granted any other facility. As a matter of fact, they enjoyed paid National holidays, leave encashment benefits, E. S. I. benefits as admissible. But they are not eligible to receive Provident Fund benefits as intimated by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, to the General Secretary, Palta Jalkal Employees Union, and as such, the petitioners have not been given Provident Fund benefits. As a matter of fact, they enjoyed paid National holidays, leave encashment benefits, E. S. I. benefits as admissible. But they are not eligible to receive Provident Fund benefits as intimated by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, to the General Secretary, Palta Jalkal Employees Union, and as such, the petitioners have not been given Provident Fund benefits. ( 16 ) AS regards the issue of absorption of the Contract Labours in Corporation Service, in terms of Clause (3) of the Memorandum of Settlement, the deponent submits that it is for the appropriate Government to take necessary decision and this should not be a matter of settlement in view of the clear provisions of section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. ( 17 ) MR. Roy, further places strong reliance on a letter written by R. K. Prasannan, the then Municipal Commissioner, dated May 17, 1988, addressed to S. Mahapatra, General Secretary, Palta Water Works and Employees Union, Barrackpore, wherein, the following decision has been communicated :" (1) We would engage the contractors' labourers directly on payment of salary as drawn by them while they were with the contractors. (2) The labourers would be engaged to start with for a period of one month pending finalisation of contract. They would also be eligible for the statutory dues which would be paid through their direct employer as and when selected. (3) Necessary equipment and materials would be supplied by C. M. C. " ( 18 ) AFTER placing the aforesaid decision, Mr. Roy, submits that the memorandum of settlement, if any, arrived at between the parties has been substantially modified and replaced by the aforesaid decision which was communicated by the then Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta Corporation, to S. Mahapatra, the General Secretary, Palta Water Works and Employees Union, Barrackpore, and it cannot be suggested that the said memorandum of agreement, as per annexure "c" is still subsisting. ( 19 ) IN support of his first contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vegoils Private Ltd vs. The Workmen, reported in AIR 1972 S. C. 1942, wherein, the Supreme Court in interpretting section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, held that power to abolish contract labour in any establishment is vested in appropriate Government and its decision in that respect is final. Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question of abolishing contract labour. Even if award abolishing contract labour is passed by Industrial Tribunal, it cannot be enforced after commencement of the Central Act, 1970. ( 20 ) THUS, according to Mr. Roy, in any event, Clause 3 of the memorandum of agreement cannot be the subject-matter of terms of settlement, although, the same has been arrived at and for enforcement of Clause 3, the writ petition cannot be maintained, in view of the aforesaid accepted legal position, as laid down by the Supreme Court. ( 21 ) IN, reply, Mr. Mitra, submits before this Court that the unilateral letter written by P,. K. Prasannan, the then Municipal Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, which was addressed to S. Mahapatra, General Secretary, Palta Water Works and Employees Union, cannot be termed to be another terms of settlement, as the same is a unilateral letter and communication, and there is no acceptance on behalf of Union of which petitioners are the members, and as such, this Court is entitled to maintain the writ petition by directing the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to implement the aforesaid terms of agreement as per Annexure "c" to the writ petition. ( 22 ) FURTHER in this context, he has placed reliance on the definition of Settlement in terms of the provisions of section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby, "settlement" has been defined, which is as follows :"2 (P) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding 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 Concilation officer. " ( 23 ) REGARDING enforceability of the Settlement Mr. Mitra has referred to the provisions of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which runs, as follows : "18. Persons on whom settlement and awards are binding- (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of concilation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Mitra has referred to the provisions of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which runs, as follows : "18. Persons on whom settlement and awards are binding- (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of concilation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration. (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3a) of section IOA or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on all parties to the Industrial Dispute all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, Arbitrator, Labour Court. Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (C) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates; (D) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part. " ( 24 ) AFTER referring in the aforesaid provisions from the said Act, Mr. Mitra submits that in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the Employees Union, the. Union withdrew the notice of strike dated May 11, 1982, and as such, such terms of agreement should be treated as settlement within the meaning of section 18 of the said Act, and is enforceable in Court of law. Mitra submits that in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the Employees Union, the. Union withdrew the notice of strike dated May 11, 1982, and as such, such terms of agreement should be treated as settlement within the meaning of section 18 of the said Act, and is enforceable in Court of law. ( 25 ) HAVING heard both sides at length and having considered the terms of settlement entered into by the representative of the Union, namely, S. Mahapatra, General Secretary, Palta Water Works and Employees Union, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, 1 am of the view that the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits in particular in terms of Clauses 1 and. 2 and the respondents Calcutta. Municipal Corporation, is not entitled to make any discrimination with the direct employees of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to bring industrial peace and should treat the writ petitioners at par with the direct employees in terms of clause 2 of the said memorandum dated June 7, 1982, as per Annexure "a" to the writ petition, and in accordance with law. ( 26 ) THIS will not, however, prevent the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to appoint new contractors and to enter into fresh memorandum of settlement with the representatives of the Union of. the Employees in terms of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in future and in accordance with law. ( 27 ) THIS Court is of the view with regard to absorption of the petitioners, in terms of clause 3 of the memorandum of settlement, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Vegoils Private Ltd. (supra), clause 3 of the agreement cannot be enforced and cannot be the subject matter of Industrial Tribunal and this is for the appropriate Government to take decision in terms of section 16 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and in accordance with law, and if any, representation is made on behalf of the writ petitioners in the said regard, the appropriate authority will decide the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed, as above. As the writ petition is allowed, all interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. The writ petition is allowed, as above. As the writ petition is allowed, all interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioners on his observance of necessary formalities for communicating the order to the respondents concerned for compliance. Petition allowed