Heard Mr. BK Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, assisted by Mr. GC Phukan, Mr. SN Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent 2 and Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Guwahati Stock Exchange Employees' Union. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the General Secretary, President and the Vice-President respectively of the said Union. They claim to represent the workmen of the Guwahati Stock Exchange Ltd, respondent No. 2. A Charter of Demand was submitted on behalf of workmen before the management of respondent No. 2. A conciliation of the dispute between the workmen and the management was attempted. Some of the demands were settled in the conciliation proceeding. With regard to other demands conciliation failed and, the State Goyt referred the industrial dispute in Reference Case No. l of 1997 to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati. Before the Industrial Tribunal, a Memorandum of Settlement purported to have arrived at between the management of respondent 2 and their employees dated 13.4.98 was filed and a prayer was made before the Tribunal to dispose of the dispute in terms of the settlement. The petitioners however filed an objection before the Tribunal contending that the settlement was not arrived at by the competent persons on behalf of the Union and that the persons who had purportedly signed the settlement on behalf of the workmen were not the members of the Union. The petitioners also filed Title Suit No. 185 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati for a declaration that the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 who had signed the settlement were not competent to function on behalf of the Union and that the settlement dated 13.4.98 filed in Reference Case No.l of 1997 before the Tribunal was a nullity. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal on 17.7.98 praying for deferring the passing of any Award on the basis of purported settlement dated 13.4.98 till the matter was decided by the competent civil Court. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed an order on 17.7.98 staying further proceedings of Reference Case No. 1 of 1997 till disposal of Title Suit No. 185 of 1998. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed an order on 17.7.98 staying further proceedings of Reference Case No. 1 of 1997 till disposal of Title Suit No. 185 of 1998. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed objection on 18.9.98 to the stay of further proceedings of Reference Case No.l of 1997 and the Tribunal heard the parties and passed an order on 5.1.99 vacating the earlier stay order passed on 17.7.98 after observing that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute and that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred and the civil Court could not entertain the dispute considering the provision I of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the said order dated 1 5.1.99 of the Tribunal, the petitioners filed this writ petition for quashing the same. 3. Mr. BK Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that a the finding of the Tribunal that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred and that the civil Court could not entertain the matter under section 9 of the CPC was not correct in law. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Brooke Bond India Ltd vs. Workmen, (1981) 3 SCC 493, in support of his submission. He argued in particular that where the dispute is with regard to the status of a particular person to function as an office bearer of a Union, the dispute is not one falling under section 2 (k) of the Industrial Dispute Act and that such a dispute can be decided in a suit with the relief's claimed under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962. 4. Mr. SN Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent 2, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Herbertsons Ltd vs. Workmen, (1976) 4 SCC 736 , and contended that it is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to determine as to whether a settlement arrived at by the management and its workmen was fair and proper and should be recorded by the Tribunal. He also relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that with regard to industrial disputes, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is impliedly barred. Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the d respondents 3 to 6 adopted the aforesaid arguments of Mr. He also relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that with regard to industrial disputes, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is impliedly barred. Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the d respondents 3 to 6 adopted the aforesaid arguments of Mr. Sarma and further submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioners, an application for injunction was filed to restrain the respondents 3 to 6 from functioning as office bearers of the Union, but the said injunction was refused by the civil Court with a prima facie finding that the respondents 3 to 6 have been duly elected as office bearers of the Union. Mr. Choudhury further contended that since the petitioners 2,3 and 4 e were not duly elected office bearers of the Union, they cannot represent the Union and have n& locus standi to file the present writ petition on behalf of the petitioner No. I Union. 5. On a reading of the impugned order dated 5.1.99,1 find that the Tribunal has not yet decided that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 13.4.98 between the management and its employees is a fair and genuine one and has not yet treated the said settlement as settlement of the dispute pending before it. Before recording a finding that the said settlement is settlement of the dispute and disposing the dispute in terms of the said settlement, the Tribunal will have to hear the parties including the petitioners as to whether the purported settlement is a fair and genuine settlement in the interest of workmen concerned as per the decisions of the Supreme Court. When such a hearing takes place before the Tribunal, the parties are at liberty to make their respective submissions on the points as to whether the settlement is genuine and fair and in the interest of workmen and as to whether the workmen were correctly represented in the settlement and it is for the Tribunal to decide the points raised by the parties and accordingly pass orders. As to whether or not the civil suit filed by the petitioners is barred and cannot entertained under section 9 of the CPC is a matter which will have to be decided by the civil Court before which the civil suit is pending. 6. As to whether or not the civil suit filed by the petitioners is barred and cannot entertained under section 9 of the CPC is a matter which will have to be decided by the civil Court before which the civil suit is pending. 6. Subject to aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati to hear the respective a parties on the question as to whether the purported settlement dated 13.4.98 was genuine and fair settlement in the interest of workmen and as to whether the dispute in question can be disposed of in terms of the. said settlement, and pass orders in accordance with law. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs.