N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of a matter dealt with by the Labour Court and later on in appeal by the Industrial Court under the provisions of B. I. R. Act, 1946. ( 2 ) THE Labour Court at Anand passed an order on 17-12-1992 in Application no. 809 if 1976 against which Appeal No. 4 of 1993 was filed in the Industrial court, Ahmedabad and said appeal was disposed of by the Industrial Court on 20-4-1993. Needless to say that both the forums, the petitioner had lost. ( 3 ) THE petitioner mill had entered into an agreement as per Annexure-A page 22 with the representative union. It is an admitted position that the parties are governed by the provisions of B. I. R. Act to the extent to which there are provisions in it. As a part of agreement arrived at between the management and union, on 4-5-1976 the respondent herein - Ramabhai Bhikhabhai was to be sent home because the third shift was closed and the plant in which he was working as mukadam was also to be closed. As per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 said Ramabhai Bhikhabhai was to be paid gratuity for the period for which gratuity was admissible for different years and towards retrenchment compensation, he was to be paid Rs. 110. 00 for each years service. Against this part of the agreement, an application under Sec. 78 read with Sec. 79 of the B. I. R. Act came to be filed before the Labour Court, Anand. In the aforesaid proceedings before the Labour Court the applicant in his deposition at Exh. 21 has set out the facts of his salary and on that basis demanded that the retrenchment compensation should have been much more than what has been provided for in the agreement. ( 4 ) THE attempt before the Labour Court was to show that as per the aforesaid agreement, retrenchment compensation was payable at the rate of Rs. 110. 00 per annum and on that basis, an attempt was made to pay the retrenchment compensation, but the respondent herein did not accept the same and therefore, provisions of Sec. 25f having been complied with, the application should be dismissed. 110. 00 per annum and on that basis, an attempt was made to pay the retrenchment compensation, but the respondent herein did not accept the same and therefore, provisions of Sec. 25f having been complied with, the application should be dismissed. ( 5 ) NO doubt, it was argued before the Trial Court that there is a binding settlement and therefore, the respondent cannot be heard to say anything against it. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the binding settlement, a clear-cut answer is to be found in sec. 25-J (2) of the I. D. Act which reads as under :" (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in any State in so far as that law provides for the settlement of Industrial disputes, but the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen in so far as they relate to lay off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. "thus the amount of retrenchment compensation has to be worked out on the basis of the aforesaid provisions along with the other provisions as applicable for the purpose under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Trial Court though the workman in his deposition stated more than once that he was getting Rs. 600. 00 p. m. by way of salary and this deposition is to be found on pages 34 and 35, the mill company, i. e. , the management though had an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent workman, they have not cross-examined him and when their turn came to lead evidence, they had chosen not to lead any evidence as regards the actual salary being paid to the respondent workman. They seem to have exclusively relied upon the said agreement, and more particularly on clause E appearing on page 24 of the petition where the respondent is referred by his name and the amount for retrenchment compensation is fixed at Rs. 110. 00. While examining the factual dispute about the salary and sufficiency or otherwise of the retrenchment compensation, the facts stated by the workman has not been controverted by the management and therefore, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that if that be the salary, obviously, the amount of Rs. 110. 110. 00. While examining the factual dispute about the salary and sufficiency or otherwise of the retrenchment compensation, the facts stated by the workman has not been controverted by the management and therefore, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that if that be the salary, obviously, the amount of Rs. 110. 00 of retrenchment compensation provided under the agreement cannot be said to be in accordance with law and he decided the matter accordingly. ( 7 ) THE matter was carried in appeal and the judgment and order of the appellate court is to be found on page 56 of the petition. The learned appellate Judge had identified the area of controversy very correctly in his judgment which is to be found at page 56 onwards. The first question, therefore, would be the basis for paying lesser amount of retrenchment compensation inspite of applicability of Sec. 25f of the I. D. Act and second aspect was with regard to reinstatement inspite of there being an agreement between the representative union and management. The validity of the agreement could not have been examined by the Trial Court was one of the points advanced before the learned appellate Judge and about the retrenchment compensation also arguments were advanced on the same lines as advanced before the Trial Court. Thus, taking note of all the facts and circumstances, there is no point in saying that the validity of the entire contract has been examined by the trial Court. The learned Appellate Judge has upheld the decision of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal partly and instead of reinstating him from the date of retrenchment, till the date he has been retrenched according to law, he is ordered to be treated as in service and he should be paid his salary accordingly. ( 8 ) THE net result, therefore, is that the amount of compensation agreed to be paid towards the retrenchment having been found to be not in accordance with the provisions of the I. D. Act, the retrenchment itself becomes illegal. ( 9 ) THE implication is that there could have been retrenchment agreement providing appropriate compensation under the I. D. Act. This would clearly mean that amount of compensation could not have been contracted to. This appears to be the legal position. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. ( 9 ) THE implication is that there could have been retrenchment agreement providing appropriate compensation under the I. D. Act. This would clearly mean that amount of compensation could not have been contracted to. This appears to be the legal position. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. P. Bhatt has relied upon the case reported in 1983 L. I. C. 1044 to show that under the provisions of b. I. R. Act an application filed by an employee is not maintainable. This is with a view to show that the application before the Trial Court itself could not have been filed by the respondent. However, aforesaid judgment is in regard to the challenge to a settlement providing for deduction of 7 per cent of net arrears payable by employer to employee under the settlement and paying that amount to the union was in question. That was held to be not violative of Secs. 7 and 23 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. No doubt in paras 7 and 9 the learned Judges have referred to the provisions of Secs. 27a, 30, 32, 33-A and 80 of the Bombay industrial Relations Act and held that any employee or group of them cannot challenge the settlement arrived at by the representative union or award passed thereon on the ground that the settlement is contrary to the provisions of law. ( 10 ) AS stated above, here, what is under challenge is not the settlement itself. Retrenchment compensation could not have been agreed to by and between the union and the employer. However, when they decided the quantum of retrenchment compensation in total disregard of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, obviously, that could not have been done. Had it been in keeping with the Industrial disputes Act and if the agreement was challenged, one could have understood the real position. The agreement, thus being not challenged, in my opinion, the case relied upon by Mr. Bhatt is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 11 ) AN attempt was made to make out a factual case that looking to the record available with the petitioner company, an amount of Rs. 110. 00 is proper; but obviously, this being a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution though no doubt, Art. 226 is mentioned this Court will not entertain this factual aspect. ( 11 ) AN attempt was made to make out a factual case that looking to the record available with the petitioner company, an amount of Rs. 110. 00 is proper; but obviously, this being a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution though no doubt, Art. 226 is mentioned this Court will not entertain this factual aspect. That opportunity is available to the petitioner before the Labour Court at Anand and instead of questioning the assertions made by the respondent in his deposition, though on oath, the petitoner company could have led oral and documentary evidence to make out a case that the amount of Rs. 110. 00 was in keeping with the record as to the payment of wages particularly to the respondent. ( 12 ) THAT having not been done and reliance having been placed by the Trial court on the said clause 3 of the agreement page 24, obviously the Trial Court had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion on the basis of the materials before it that said amount Rs. 110. 00 is not in keeping with the provisions of law because it is far less than what the respondent would have got looking to the salary as stated by him on oath. ( 13 ) ADMITTEDLY, best possible evidence was available with the petitoner company and yet it has chosen to keep it back. At this stage, therefore, they cannot be also relied upon. ( 14 ) THUS, there is no substance in this petition and hence it is dismissed. Notice discharged. ( 15 ) THE amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 (Fifty thousand) deposited by the petitioner in this Court as per the order date 28-9-1993 to be given to the workmen on proper identification. .