JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2.Trade Union is to fight against exploitation of the working class in the factories, industries or in any kind of employment. They have to minimise and if possible, to abolish exploitation of the employees by the employers. While in the process of removing exploitation, they must always bear in mind that neither the industries nor industrialists can be and should be destroyed as the destruction of industries would be self-destructive of the working class itself. It might be, perhaps the trade unionists think that the industrialists or the entrepreneurs are evils but they must remember that they are the necessary wheels in the system. According to the industrialists or the capitalists, the labour might be considered in the same process of thinking as evil but it is also the necessary wheel which can never be whisked away from the system. In short, both the wheels i.e. the capital and the labour are essential in the system and both must coexist in mutual cooperation, neither should try to harm the other. Both must observe their respective 'Dharma' and should not cross the 'Laxman Rekha'. 3.The facts in the present case have made me to begin this judgment as above. It is extremely sad that the Trade Unions in the small towns more tend to cause harm to the industries by adopting extreme methods of destruction of the industries. A large number of industries have made good efforts to spread their industries by moving out of the congested and concentrated industrial cities so that the local population, which has the tendency to reach the industrial cities for jobs, get employment in their own home towns. In this process, a number of other civic problems are also solved and the concentration or the pressure on the industrialised cities is reduced. The Trade Unions must always remember that they have to function within their local limits and in the interest of the local population so that unemployment problem is solved. These small towns need such small or medium or even large industries for the prosperity and progress of the small cities. In stead of helping such entrepreneurs by extending the hand of co-operation, it is unfortunate that the local Trade Unions, for their own selfish motives, tend to cause harm and ultimately the industries end up in winding up. These small towns need such small or medium or even large industries for the prosperity and progress of the small cities. In stead of helping such entrepreneurs by extending the hand of co-operation, it is unfortunate that the local Trade Unions, for their own selfish motives, tend to cause harm and ultimately the industries end up in winding up. In the present case, it is shocking that both the petitioners Unions have, without any hesitation and in total ignorance of the law, been claiming that both of them are recognised Unions in the one and the same undertaking of the respondent No. 2 industry. Even in their complaint of Unfair Labour Practice filed before the Industrial Court, both the Unions jointly have asserted and averred with all solemnity that they are functioning in the said Industry as recognised Unions. Even the Industrial Court has not applied its mind to this very crucial point that under the provisions of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, there cannot be two recognised Unions in one undertaking. Across the Bar, I had repeatedly asked the learned Advocate for the petitioners whether he still maintained that both of them are the recognised Unions in one undertaking or whether there are two undertakings of the same Industry or the employer. I had also tried to explain to him whether by recognition he meant only registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, he repeated that both the Unions were recognised under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. Thereafter, I enquired from him to show the recognition certificates granted by the Industrial Court under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, he was not able to produce any such evidence to show that both the unions were recognised Unions functioning in one and the same undertaking. On this point alone, the complaint deserved to be dismissed . However, it appears that even the Industrial Court was unaware of the provisions of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and, therefore, he proceeded to decide the complaint on merits in accordance with the pleadings. Even, the employer i.e. the respondent No. 2 has merely pleaded that the complainants Unions had no locus standi etc. 4.The facts as revealed from the record before me are very curious. Even, the employer i.e. the respondent No. 2 has merely pleaded that the complainants Unions had no locus standi etc. 4.The facts as revealed from the record before me are very curious. It appears that both the Unions got themselves united and filed the present joint complaint mainly against the employer for declaration that the employer has engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 5,7,9, and 10 of Schedule IV and Items 1, 5 and 6 of the same Schedule. The main relief sought by these trade unions in the complaint is that a settlement dated 29-7-1995 entered by the employer with the individual employees should be declared illegal and that the 42 employees concerned in the said complaint should be reinstated with full backwages and continuity of service and that, the lay off commenced and continued should be declared illegal and full wages should be paid to the said employees. A list of 42 employees on whose behalf the Trade Unions have purported to file the present complaint is annexed with the complaint. The petitioners have averred in their complaint that all the employees i.e. about 500 had en mass gone on leave from 16-3-1995 to 18-3-1995 and that, their aforesaid leave was not refused. It is further stated that when they reported for work on 19-3-1995, they were not allowed to resume their duties and, therefore, they had approached the authorities under the Act and they had, therefore, filled the present complaint of unfair labour practice. According to them from 2-4-1995, the employer had declared illegal lock out and meanwhile, the employer had entered into an agreement or a settlement on 29-7-1995 with the intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner with individual employee who accepted the terms of the settlement and also had given good conduct bond and they were allowed to join the duties. It was also agreed that the entire period of lock out would be treated as lay off period and all those employees would be paid wages/compensation as lay off compensation i.e. 50% of the total wages during the period. The employer filed his say-cum-written statement raising several contentions and denying that any unfair labour practice was engaged in by the employer. The employer filed his say-cum-written statement raising several contentions and denying that any unfair labour practice was engaged in by the employer. From the pleadings, the Industrial Court has come to a curious conclusion that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971 and had directed that the respondent employer should negotiate with the recognised Unions only and that the respondent employer should pay lay off wages to all the 42 employees from 10-8-1995 till they join the duties. As a matter of fact, the Industrial Court has found that out of 440 employees, 420 had signed the settlement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner who had intervened in the matter and only about 42 employees had refused to sign the settlement. The Industrial Court has also found, as a matter of fact, that all the office bearers of the self-styled recognised unions i.e. the petitioners had signed the settlement. It is also a fact that majority of the employees had received the benefits under the settlement. Both the Trade Unions appear to have undergone a clear-cut by-pass surgery at the hands of the employees i.e. their own members who appear to have smelt a rat in the offices of the Trade Unions and a substantially large majority of the members of both the Unions appears to have deserted their respective Unions and have signed a wise settlement with the employer after the timely intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner who succeeded in bringing about the Industrial Peace in the area wherein 440 employees' families were restored to a position to get bread in the days of drought which was looming large in the area in those days. It appears that the employees were instigated to go on an illegal strike under the guise of four days leave, leaving the factory plant and machinery, furnace of the factory unattended so that damage could be caused beyond repairable limits. It is on record that the furnace remained unattended for the period of so called leave and that would have caused tremendous damage to the factory. In this situation, the employer thought it proper to declare lock out and it appears that the employees realised that they were misled and misguided by their own so called leaders. It is on record that the furnace remained unattended for the period of so called leave and that would have caused tremendous damage to the factory. In this situation, the employer thought it proper to declare lock out and it appears that the employees realised that they were misled and misguided by their own so called leaders. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the settlement which is on record at Exh. D of the petition. It is signed by the representatives of the Management and also the employees. It appears that the employees had formed their own committee for negotiations with the employer through the Assistant Labour Commissioner machinery. Barring 42 employees, all had accepted the settlement and the benefits thereunder including the lay off compensation and giving of good conduct bond which was drafted by the Industrial Court. In the settlement, the employer has given rise in wages in all Rs. 500/- during the period from January, 1996 to December, 1998 and has also agreed to treat the entire period as lay off so that the employees get 50% of the wages of the total period of non working. The settlement is for a period of three years i.e. till 31st December, 1998. 5.It is a novel scene that two Trade Unions have united as against the large majority of the employees and the employees have united in their own interest and in the interest of the industry by leaving the offices of the Trade Unions empty. These two Trade Unions who are self styled recognised Unions, are desperately avoiding to get some foot hold some where through the legal process. They have sought a declaration that the settlement with the individual employee is null and void as under the provisions of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 settlement must be with a recognised union and since in the present case, the settlement is with the individual employee and not with the recognised Unions, it is null and void, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid legal position, as I have already stated earlier that the claim of both the petitioners that they are recognised Unions functioning in one and the same undertaking itself is absolutely untenable. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid legal position, as I have already stated earlier that the claim of both the petitioners that they are recognised Unions functioning in one and the same undertaking itself is absolutely untenable. In this situation, if there is no recognised Union and if the employer and the substantially large majority of the employees have signed a settlement providing for their benefits and obligations there is nothing in the law which compels me to say that such a settlement is illegal or null and void. The second contention of the learned Advocate that the lay off compensation should be full wages and it cannot be 50% of the total wages. It is not exactly the lay off wages as provided under the settlement. Both the parties have found out a via media to resolve their conflict by agreeing to get 50% of wages for the total period during which there was an illegal strike, a lock out and lay off. Both the parties have agreed to sacrifice on the basis of apportionment of blame. Since it is provided in the said settlement that the employees will be paid 50% as lay off compensation, I do not find anything wrong with the said term of the agreement which is an overall and mutual understanding of both the parties. It is to be borne in mind that almost all the employees have accepted this amount and all the benefits of the settlement and almost all the employees have given good conduct bond and industrial peace is restored in the area, I cannot set at naught the efforts of the employer, the employees and the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In the larger interest of the Industrial Peace and of the parties concerned including the people in the town, I hold that the settlement is legal, proper and justified and there is nothing wrong with the said settlement, benefits of which are accepted by a large substantial majority of the employees. 6.Both the petitioners - Unions have tried to carry battle upto this Court with the help of 42 out of 475 employees (the figures of employees are given differently at different places but, I rely on the figures given by the employer from the record i.e. 475 employees) on Muster, 35 are the office staff and 440 are the blue collared employees. It is alleged that 42 employees are to be reinstated and to be paid full backwages. The employer in his affidavit has stated that out of 440 employees 421 have individually signed the settlement and accepted the benefits of the settlement. It is possible that during the course of the sufferings, the other employees might have accepted the settlement and as on today, the figure might be within the knowledge of the concerned parties though however, the petitioners are claiming the relief for 42 employees. The employer had allowed all the employees to report for duties after giving a prescribed undertaking of good conduct and I do not see anything wrong committed by the employer when in the situation faced by the employer, if he requires every employee to give an undertaking that he will behave properly and with discipline, he will be fully justified as in the present case the respondents were fully justified in the given circumstances. I do not, therefore, hold that 42 employees were illegally kept out. They were also welcome by the respondents employers to sign the good conduct bond as prescribed by the Industrial Court and resume their duties. Since, they did not do so and if they have not done so, thereafter they are not entitled to any relief of backwages as is held by the Industrial Court that they should be paid wages till they resume their duties. This would create a very strange situation that the employees do not resume their duties and they come to factory gate as and when they think and that they get full wages for the entire period within which they had themselves kept out of employment voluntarily. If the employees had refused to comply with the conditions to join the duties, it cannot be said that they are entitled to full wages till they join their duties. Such an order is totally illegal and untenable in the face of the legal position that if the employees do not give a good conduct undertaking prescribed by the Industrial Court even in that case, they are entitled to full wages till they join their duties. Such an order is totally illegal and untenable in the face of the legal position that if the employees do not give a good conduct undertaking prescribed by the Industrial Court even in that case, they are entitled to full wages till they join their duties. According to the clear legal position if 42 employees or if all or any of them joined their duties on giving good conduct bond as prescribed by the Industrial Court and if they sign and accept the terms of the settlement, they are certainly entitled to lay off wages as prescribed in the settlement. According to me, they are not entitled to full wages during the period during which they were away from work and have refused to give good conduct undertaking to join the duties. In the aforesaid circumstances, the rule is discharged and the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.