Order Heard Mr. Mishra on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, in this application, seeks to challenge an award of the Industrial Tribunal given by it on a reference made under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Two disputes were referred to the Tribunal which are as follows: "1 : Whether the workmen of R. B. H. M. Jute Mills, Katihar Unit of National Jute Manufactures Corporation Ltd. are entitled to get accommodation allowance at par with the workmen working in Jute Mills of Bengal under the control of same establishment? If so since when and at what rate?" "2 : Whether to make available again as usual Deepawali holidays to the workmen of R.B.H.M. Jute Mills, Katihar Unit of National Jute Manufactures Corporation Ltd. which was available to them prior to 1979 is justified or not?" 4. As regards the dispute at serial no.1; the Tribunal gave a no dispute award. In the second dispute the Tribunal gave its award in favour of the workmen holding that they were entitled to one day's paid holiday on the occasion of Deepawali which was available to them prior to 1979. The Tribunal in its award, however, did not allow any arrear on this account to the workmen. 5. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the award first, on the ground that the question of holidays to the workmen had been concluded by a conciliation settlement, dated 27.04.83 (copy at Annexure 2), and, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in law in granting an additional day's holiday to the workmen. 6. I am unable to appreciate this submission. The conciliation settlement was signed by the parties on 27.04.83 and, thus, it became enforceable from that date. The settlement does not stipulate any period during which it would remain in operation and, hence, in terms of Section 19 (2), the parties were bound by it for the statutory period of six months from the date of its signing. Thereafter it was open to either of the parties to rescind the settlement by raising an industrial dispute in respect of the subject matter of that settlement. And in the facts of this case the settlement must be deemed to have been rescinded when the workmen raised the dispute leading to the reference. 7. Thereafter it was open to either of the parties to rescind the settlement by raising an industrial dispute in respect of the subject matter of that settlement. And in the facts of this case the settlement must be deemed to have been rescinded when the workmen raised the dispute leading to the reference. 7. Thus, in my Opinion, the petitioner cannot rely upon the aforesaid settlement for assailing the Tribunal's award. 8. Mr. Mishra, then, relied upon Section 12 of the Jute Companies (Nationalisation) Act, 1980 in support of his submission that the Tribunal could not add to the number of holidays already available to the workmen. In my view the submission is quite misconceived. Because Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act actually affords protection to the workmen by laying down that the workmen of the nationalised units would continue to enjoy the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to them if there had been no vesting and would continue to do so unless and until their employment under the Central Government or the Jute Manufactures Corporation was duly terminated or until their remuneration and other conditions of service were duly altered by the Central Government or the Jute Manufactures Corporation, as the case may be. 9. It is clear to me that the provision contained in Section 12 of the Act affords a protection to the workmen against an adverse change in the service conditions. It does not create any bar against the Tribunal awarding them some benefit which they did not enjoy earlier. 10. Mr. Mishra, then, submitted that it is indeed true that the workmen were earlier getting a paid holiday for Deepawali but with the coming into force of the Bihar Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays and Casual Leave) Act, the holiday for Deepawali was substituted for second October, the birth day of Mahatma Gandhi, that being one of the National holidays under the Act. In this regard he also relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC, 1006 (Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The case relied upon by Mr. Mishra is clearly inapplicable to this case for two reasons. In this regard he also relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC, 1006 (Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The case relied upon by Mr. Mishra is clearly inapplicable to this case for two reasons. The Indian Oxygen's case went to the Supreme Court from a decision by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and not from an industrial adjudication made by an Industrial Tribunal on a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act. Secondly and what is more important is that there was already a settlement and the High Court had allowed a holiday in addition to what was provided in the settlement between the parties which was subsisting on that date. 11. As noted above, in the present case there was no subsisting settlement between the parties and. thus, it left the workmen free to raise an industrial dispute on the subject which was duly referred for adjudication before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on a consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances gave its award in favour of the workmen. 12. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application and it is accordingly, dismissed.