JUDGMENT 1. The challenge is against Ext. P-4 award of the second respondent. Petitioner is a public limited company. First respondent Union raised a claim on the ground that there is disparity in wages between 9 workers who are working as Quality Control Assistants and three others appointed for the same post on the same date. Petitioner contended that the salary is paid according to the provisions of the conciliation settlement which is binding on the management as well as the workers. The State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the second respondent. The Tribunal passed Ext. P-4 award upholding the discrimination charge against the petitioner (hereafter referred to as 'the management') and directed payment of the deducted amount to the aggrieved workmen with retrospective effect from the date on which they were appointed as Quality Control Assistants. 2. Contention of the petitioner is. that conditions of service, wages and other emoluments were fixed on the basis of long term conciliation settlement and that it is binding on the management as well as the workers and so the first respondent (hereafter "referred to as 'the union') cannot claim the alleged monetary loss suffered by the workmen so long as the settlement is in force. Contention of the Union is that M/s Dominic, Velappan and Muraleedharan who were all juniors to the 9 workers were given a favoured treatment and that they got appointments as Quality Control Assistants while they were given permanent posts whereas the 9 workers were denied such permanent posts and this has resulted in 'gross discrimination.' On the other hand, management contended that M/s Dominic, Velappan" and Muraleedharan were permanent workers prior to 9th August 1978 and the 9 workmen whose cause' the Union has espoused were factory apprentices when they were appointed as Quality Control Assistants. To sum up management asserts that on 9th August 1978 they were not permanent employees of the management and so they could not obviously get the same pay as drawn by M/s Dominic, Velappan and Muraleedharan. 3. Counsel for the management relied on clause IV(1)(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 25th March 1978. To sum up management asserts that on 9th August 1978 they were not permanent employees of the management and so they could not obviously get the same pay as drawn by M/s Dominic, Velappan and Muraleedharan. 3. Counsel for the management relied on clause IV(1)(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 25th March 1978. The above clause reads: "New recruits to permanent jobs either in workers category or in staff category after completing their training and / or probationary period will be given in case of workers at 10 paise per hour less than the base of the permanent grade and will reach their permanent grade after two years and in case of staff grade after completing training and / or probationary period will start at Rs. 20 less than the grade fixed above and will be given their normal grade at the end of two years giving an ad hoc increase per year of 5 paise in case of workers grade and Rs.10 per year in case of staff grade." So on the basis of the above clause, management contends that the 9 workers who were newly recruited to the permanent jobs after completion of their training period and / or probationary period were entitled to get 10 paise per hour less than the base of the basic pay and accordingly their salary was fixed on 9th August 1978. They became permanent workers for the first time when they became Quality Control Assistants, but M/s Dominic, Velappan and Muraleedharan were permanent workers prior to 9th August 3978. Precisely that was the reason why they were given base of the basic salary of the grade allotted. 4. Dominic, Velappan and Muraleedharan were given Rs. 12 in their basic pay subsequently as per sub clause (16) of clause IX of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 27th June 1980. That clause reads as follows: "In the case of existing Quality Control Assistants, Control Board Assistants, Progress Chasers, Physical Lab Assistants, Chemical Lab Assistants, Test Wheel Operators promoted from amongst the permanent workmen, it is agreed that an amount of Rs. 12 will be granted and merged into their basic pay." 5. That clause reads as follows: "In the case of existing Quality Control Assistants, Control Board Assistants, Progress Chasers, Physical Lab Assistants, Chemical Lab Assistants, Test Wheel Operators promoted from amongst the permanent workmen, it is agreed that an amount of Rs. 12 will be granted and merged into their basic pay." 5. According to the management, the 9 workers were not given the above benefit as they were not permanent workers when they became Quality Control Assistants on 9th August 1978 whereas those employees who were holding permanent posts when posted as Quality Control Assistants were given the benefit in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 27th June 1980. Exhibits W-4 and W-5 are the settlements. Allegation of discriminatory attitude towards a section of the workers and favoured treatment to another section is refuted by the management. Counsel for the management submitted that in view of the settlements the only course open to the management is to adhere to it and so long as the settlements have not been challenged and found bad by any competent authority the management cannot ignore it. 6. It is admitted that Dominic, Velappan and Muraleedharan while appointed as Quality Control Assistants were working in L-3, L-4 Grades and so they got the fixation of their basic pay at Rs. 297. Also it is admitted that the 9 workmen were appointed as Quality Control Assistants while they were working as apprentices (factory workers). Counsel for the Union submitted that these 9 workers were not given option to be absorbed in the category of permanent workers and so it is hot fair or proper to deny them the same basic pay as given to Dominic, Velappan and Muraleedharan. 7. Counsel for the management submitted that Exts. W-4 and W-5 settlements were not challenged by any one of the unions and so the disparity in the wages between the 9 workers and the other 3 workers cannot be challenged in the present proceedings. Counsel submitted that so long as those settlements stand the Union's demand cannot be allowed. 8. Whenever a settlement is reached during the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union it would be binding on all workmen including those of the dissenting Unions. Counsel submitted that so long as those settlements stand the Union's demand cannot be allowed. 8. Whenever a settlement is reached during the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union it would be binding on all workmen including those of the dissenting Unions. The dominant principle is that settlements reached between the management and the trade union with the assistance of the conciliation officer should not be allowed to be diluted at a later stage. If great sanctity is not attached to the settlement between the management and the union and if it is allowed to be meddled with from stage to stage, the result would be anarchy and disaster in the industrial arena. Whenever a settlement is arrived at between the management and the majority union, the assumption is that it is fair and reasonable. Such settlement is placed on a par with an award by an adjudicatory authority. When a settlement is accepted by the trade unions representing the majority of the workers and when it is found generally beneficial to them, challenge to the same later cannot be countenanced. In Barauni Refineries P.S.B. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 1991 (1) LLJ 46 , the Supreme Court held: "A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. To that extent, it departs from the ordinary law of contract. The object obviously is to uphold the sanctity of settlement reached with the active assistance of the conciliation officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement. There is an underlying assumption, that a settlement reached with the help of the conciliation officer must be. fair and reasonable and can, therefore, safely be made binding not only on the workmen belonging to the union signing the settlement but also on others. That is why a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is put on par with an award made by an adjudicatory authority." 9. The object of the settlement through conciliation proceedings is to uphold its sanctity and to discourage any individual employee or a minority. union from torpedoing it. That is why a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is put on par with an award made by an adjudicatory authority." 9. The object of the settlement through conciliation proceedings is to uphold its sanctity and to discourage any individual employee or a minority. union from torpedoing it. There is always an underlying assumption that the settlement reached with the help of the conciliation officer is fair and reasonable. As it would be binding not only on the workmen belonging to the union which is signatory to the settlement but also others the settlements (Exts. W-4 and W-5) will have to be sustained as against the belated onslaught against it. , 10. As the validity of the settlement was not challenged, there was no scope for the Tribunal for any enquiry as to its merits or demerits. In Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1963-11 LLJ 647 at 651, the Supreme Court held : "Therefore, the settlement has to be sighed in the manner prescribed by the rules and a copy of it has to be sent to the Government and the conciliation officer. This should ordinarily ensure that the agreement has been arrived at without any of those defects to which we have referred above, if it is in accordance, with the rules. Then S.18(1) provides that such a settlement would be binding between the parties and S.19(1) provides that it shall come into force on the date it was signed or on the date on which it says that it shall come into force. Therefore, as soon as an agreement is signed in the prescribed manner and a copy of it is sent to the Government and the conciliation officer, it becomes binding at once on the parties to it and comes into operation on the date it is signed or on the date which might be mentioned in it for its coming into operation. In such a case, there is no scope for any inquiry by Government as to the bona fide character of the settlement which becomes binding and comes into operation once it is signed in the manner provided in the rules and a copy is sent to the Government and the conciliation officer. In such a case, there is no scope for any inquiry by Government as to the bona fide character of the settlement which becomes binding and comes into operation once it is signed in the manner provided in the rules and a copy is sent to the Government and the conciliation officer. The settlement having thus become binding and in many cases having already come into operation, there is no scope for any inquiry by the Government as to the bona fides of the settlement." In Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Company 1979-2 LLJ 194, the Supreme Court held that if there is no pleading there is no question of proving something which is not pleaded. Relying on the above decision, counsel for the management submitted that as the settlements (Exts. W-4 and W-5) were not 'challenged and as there is no specific pleading to that effect and as the union has no case that the settlements are bad first respondent on" his own could not have tilted the settled position. 11. How a settlement should be interpreted has been considered in Herbertsons Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1977 SC 322 = 1976 (4) SCC 736 . Where a recognised union has negotiated with the employer and arrived at a settlement individual workers cannot challenge it on the ground that its implementation would be detrimental to their interests. It is not necessary that each individual worker is made aware of the implications of the settlement in a case where the recognised union and the management agreed to a settlement. Presumption is that the legitimate interests of the workers are well protected by the trade union and the settlement is - in the best interests of the workers. Of course, in certain cases the position may be different. Where there are allegations of malafides, fraud or even corruption or other inducements the, normal rule has no application. 12. The first respondent Union has no case that the settlements between the management and the unions do not cater to the best interests of the workers and that it is actuated by malafides and is the result of fraud, corruption or other inducements. So long as the union does not have such a case "it cannot decry the settlements, Exts. W-4 and W-5. So long as the union does not have such a case "it cannot decry the settlements, Exts. W-4 and W-5. When a settlement is analysed the Court has necessarily to consider the overall situation and the dominant factors which were taken into consideration by the union and the management while arriving at the ' settlement. If the settlement is generally favourable to the workers, it cannot be assailed on minor points not favourable to them. ' Give and take policy will have to be adopted in every settlement and if on some aspects the settlement is found to be not wholly conducive to the interests of the workers whereas as a whole it has been found to be highly advantageous to them, it cannot be scuttled. At any rate, when a recognised union has entered into a settlement through negotiations and conciliations, an individual worker or a group of workers who are affected thereby cannot challenge it - especially when the settlement as a whole is found advantageous and beneficial to the majority of the workers. In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Workmen 1981 11 LLJ 429, the Supreme Court held : "A settlement cannot be weighed in any golden scale and the question whether it is just and fair has to be answered on the basis of principles different from those which came into play where an industrial dispute is under adjudication, if the settlement has been arrived at by a vast majority of workmen with their eyes open and was also accepted by them in its totality, it must be presumed to be fair and just and not liable to be ignored merely because a small number of workers were not parties to it or refused to accept it or . because the Tribunal thought that the workers deserved marginally higher emoluments than they themselves thought they did." 13. In fact the settlements created additional posts and but for it the 9 workers would not have been posted as Quality Control Assistants. The Union who obtained the benefit under the settlements cannot be allowed to challenge its terms as they were accepted by the Trade Unions. Classification regarding the wage scale so far as those employees promoted directly for the permanent post and those who do not come under that category is only reasonable. The Union who obtained the benefit under the settlements cannot be allowed to challenge its terms as they were accepted by the Trade Unions. Classification regarding the wage scale so far as those employees promoted directly for the permanent post and those who do not come under that category is only reasonable. The management has not favoured a set of employees to the detriment of others. The disparity is there only on account of the settlements reached between the management and the trade unions. As the majority of the Unions agreed to it without any demur, first respondent Union cannot assail it for any reasons. 14. In Cochin Shipyard Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal 1989 (3) KLT 903, this Court held: "The primary object of the Industrial Disputes Act is to maintain industrial peace and harmony and it is with that in view amicable settlement of industrial disputes are encouraged. If that be so there cannot be any doubt that, if a dispute is amicably settled, the Tribunal before which the issues are pending adjudication is bound to make an award in terms of settlement instead of deciding them de hors the settlement." In view of Exts. W-4 and W-5 settlements which are binding on the workers and which continue to remain in force, they cannot make any demand opposed to what has been contained in the settlements. In Ext. P-3 there is no allegation that Exts. W-4 and W-5 settlements are invalid. In Ext. P-1 claim petition, also there is no such contention. The only contention is that discrimination was shown to the 9 workers with regard to the emoluments paid to them as Quality Control Assistants while certain others were favoured. First respondent's counsel contended that the disparity in the wages even if it is part of the settlement is against the public policy and so it cannot be justified. Such a contention cannot be taken in view of the binding nature of Exts. W-4 and W-5 settlements. In para 11 of the "award the Tribunal observed that if reliance is made on the terms contained in Exts. W-4 and W-5 settlements what the management had done was correct. But the Tribunal found fault with the management for having favoured a set of employees. W-4 and W-5 settlements. In para 11 of the "award the Tribunal observed that if reliance is made on the terms contained in Exts. W-4 and W-5 settlements what the management had done was correct. But the Tribunal found fault with the management for having favoured a set of employees. In view of the settlements which have been accepted by the trade unions, it is indeed difficult to hold that the management has adopted hostile attitude towards certain employees as against favoured treatment to certain others. Second respondent was not justified in holding that the management is bound to pay the difference in the wages as contended by the first respondent to the 9 workers. The 9 workers are not entitled to claim such amount. Ext. P-4 award is quashed. Original Petition stands allowed.