JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal (Central). It appears that disputes regarding termination of service of an employee was going on. The matter was referred by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The employer engaged one Sri B.L. Gupta as its authorised representative. During the course of proceedings. The authorised representative of the employer and the employee, the opposite party No. 2, entered into settlement and it was agreed that his services will be regularised, but so far as back wages are concerned of the period he remained out of employment, he will be paid 75% of the back wages. It appear that the employer moved an application, but the application was rejected. 2. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the authorised representative was not competent to enter into any settlement and the power of the authorised representative is limited and in this regard certain rules have been referred. Rule 29 of the Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) reads as under: "29. Right of representatives - The representatives of the parties appearing before a Board, Labour Court,Tribunal or National Tribunal or an Arbitrator shall have the right of examination, cross-examination and of addressing the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal or Arbitrator when an evidence has been called." Rule 36 of the Rules provides as under: "36. Form of authority under Section 36 - The authority in favour of a person or persons to represent a workman or group of Workmen or an employer in any proceeding under this Act shall be in Form F." Rule 37 is reproduced hereunder: "37. Parties bound by acts of representatives - A party appearing by a representative shall be bound by the acts of that representative." Rule 58 reads as under: "58. Parties bound by acts of representatives - A party appearing by a representative shall be bound by the acts of that representative." Rule 58 reads as under: "58. Memorandum of settlement - (1) A settlement arrived at in the course of reconciliation proceedings or otherwise, shall be in Form 'H'." (2) The settlement shall be signed by - (a) in the case of an employer, by the employer himself, or by his authorised agent, or when the employer is an incorporated company or other body corporate, by the agent, manager or other principal officer of the Corporation ; (b) in the case of the workmen, by any officer of a trade union of the workmen or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose ; (c) in the case of the workmen in an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act, by the workman concerned. A perusal of Rule 37 indicates that parties are bound by the acts of the representatives. Rule 58 (2) (a) provides that a settlement shall be signed by the employer himself or by his authorised agent. 3. In the instant case, the agreement was entered by the authorised representative of the employer and the workman and there appears to be no illegality in it. 4. Learned counsel relied on rule 29 of the Rules. Rule 29 does not enumerate any bar on the authorised representative to enter into an agreement. Rule 29 provides that the authorised representative will have a right to examine, cross-examine and address the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal or Arbitrator when an evidence is called. The settlement which has been arrived at also appears to be in conformity with Rule 58. It cannot be said that the authorised representative has no power to enter into a settlement with the opposite party. It will not be necessary to dilate more upon this question as the settlement which has been arrived at between the employer and the employer appears to be a just and advances cause of harmonious relationship between the employer and the employee. It will not be necessary to dilate more upon this question as the settlement which has been arrived at between the employer and the employer appears to be a just and advances cause of harmonious relationship between the employer and the employee. There appears to be no error of law committed by the Industrial Tribunal, and even if it can be said that for some explanation, some other view is possible, yet is not a fit case in which interference is to be made. 5. In view of what has been said above, the writ petition is dismissed . There will be no order as to costs.