JUDGMENT : E. Padmanabhan, J.—The first-petitioner is a registered trade Union, while the second petitioner claims to be one of the affected 321 workmen for whose benefit, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to give preference to the 321 employees whose names are set out in the typed set of papers for appointment to the post of sweeper, watchman, water woman and the like and not to engage new hands till then. 3. Heard Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Row and Reddy and Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. Initially notice of motion was ordered by this Court on March 24, 1999. Subsequently, on July 7, 1999, rule nisi was issued. With the consent of the counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing even though service on the second respondent was: not complete. As no relief has been sought for against the second respondent and as the relief prayed for is only against the first respondent, Sri N.G.R. Prasad advanced his arguments. Sri. S. Jayaraman resisted the various contentions raised by Sri N.G.R. Prasad. 5. The petitioners claim that 321 employees including the second petitioner as detailed in the typed set of papers are the members of the first petitioner-trade union. According to the petitioner the 321 members were engaged as messengers, sweepers, watchmen, etc., in various branches of the first respondent-bank for a number of years, without their being made permanent despite there being permanent vacancies. The 321 employees were engaged as temporary and many of them since 1980 till they were denied employment on April 1, 1997. 6. The petitioners have raised an industrial dispute regarding denial of employment from April 1, 1997 and also have sought for regularisation. According to the petitioner, despite the 321 persons having put in as many as 240 days in a period of 12 months, they have not been absorbed. However in a settlement with a recognised union on November 17, 1987 those who have put in 240 days in 12 months were absorbed and the settlement was u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which settlement it is claimed is not binding on the 321 members. However in a settlement with a recognised union on November 17, 1987 those who have put in 240 days in 12 months were absorbed and the settlement was u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which settlement it is claimed is not binding on the 321 members. Many employees who had put in 270 days in a span of three years were regularised earlier even though they have joined later than these 321 employees. 7. While 321 employees are waiting for their turn the State Bank of India in their circular dated October 24, 1998, intimated that the panel had lapsed on April 1, 1997, and on that score had denied employment and permanent absorption to 321 employees. Hence the industrial dispute and also the present writ petition. 8. According to the petitioner the first respondent had issued a circular, dated October 24, 1998, intimating that vacancies that arose after March 31, 1998 will have to be filed up before the end of the financial year March 31, 1999 and if any vacancy is allowed to remain unfilled and carried over to next year, such vacancies have to be filled up with the approval of the Central office. It is alleged that the first respondent is taking steps for fresh recruitment through Employment Exchange and the Employment Exchange also sent call letters sponsoring very many candidates. It is contended that persons who have not worked in the State Bank earlier are being given preference while the 321 employees are entitled to preference u/s 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act as has been held by the Apex Court in Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam and others, (1996) 5 SCC 419 , and in terms of the said pronouncement the 321 employees, who have put in service since 1980 and retrenched on April 1, 1997 are entitled to preference in like of employment for the post of messengers, sweepers, etc. 9. According to the petitioner, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will override the provisions of the Employment Exchange Compulsory Notification Act and the 321 employees are entitled to preference u/s 25H. 9. According to the petitioner, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will override the provisions of the Employment Exchange Compulsory Notification Act and the 321 employees are entitled to preference u/s 25H. The 321 employees have been demanding employment, but there has been no reply while the first respondent is proceeding with fresh recruitment ignoring the claims of the 321 employees who have put in years of service and who are entitled to preference u/s 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the present writ petition. 10. The first respondent filed a detailed counter. In the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that there is neither a public nor a statutory duty on the part of the first respondent-bank to appoint the alleged 321 persons, nor they have a legal vested right to get absorbed. It is contended specifically by the respondent that all the 321 persons have already raised industrial dispute questioning their non-employment and the same is pending before the Labour Court. In the very same dispute the petitioners have questioned not only the alleged non-employment, but also sought for absorption and regularisation. 11. It is incorrect to contend that the first respondent had illegally retrenched the 321 workmen, much less, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is pointed out by the first respondent that the question as to whether the 321 employees have been illegally retrenched or as to whether they are entitled to reinstatement u/s 25H are all matters to be adjudicated by letting in evidence before the Labour Court in a regular trial as has been held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. As the industrial dispute is pending this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners have approached this Court after a lapse of two years after the expiry of the panel on March 31, 1997 as per the settlement entered into between the majority union and the bank management. 12. The prayer sought for in the injunction application for bearing the first respondent-bank from recruiting fresh hands without giving preference to the 321 persons concerned is devoid of merits. The petitioners have come before this Court belatedly and they are not entitled to any one of the reliefs. 12. The prayer sought for in the injunction application for bearing the first respondent-bank from recruiting fresh hands without giving preference to the 321 persons concerned is devoid of merits. The petitioners have come before this Court belatedly and they are not entitled to any one of the reliefs. The 321 ex-temporary employees were not the members of any union when the settlement referred were executed. The said 321 ex-temporary employees were not permanent employees and they cannot become members of the first petitioner employees' union and it is obvious that the 321 employees have become the members of the petitioner-union after they ceased to be engaged. The present writ petition has been filed with a mala fide and ulterior intention claiming priority on untenable basis. 13. The members of the petitioner-union were wait listed against the vacancies for the post of messengers and they are totally not connected and they do not have any right to claim or eligibility against the other posts, viz., menials and watchmen and such relief also cannot be claimed. The petitioners priority, if any, is only against the vacancies for the post of messenger and they cannot claim any priority or appointment to the cadre of menials or watchmen. 14. Due to exigencies several branches of the first respondent- bank resorted to temporary engagement of temporary messengers in the vacancies and they were innumerable and such employees were demanding employment. The State Bank of India Staff Federation took up the matter and settlement was entered taking into consideration various aspects. The settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58 of the Central Rules was entered between the first respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation referred to as the first settlement on November 17, 1987. A subsequent settlement was also executed on July 16, 1988 referred to as the second settlement besides a third settlement was also executed on October 27, 1988 and the fourth settlement was executed on January 9, 1991 and the fifth settlement was executed on June 9, 1995. 15. In terms of the first and also the second settlement certain categories of employees who have worked in subordinate cadre between July 1, 1975 to July 31, 1988 who were eligible were entitled to a chance for being considered for permanent appointment subject to the conditions therein. 15. In terms of the first and also the second settlement certain categories of employees who have worked in subordinate cadre between July 1, 1975 to July 31, 1988 who were eligible were entitled to a chance for being considered for permanent appointment subject to the conditions therein. Accordingly, in all 1307 temporary employees out of 3164 were absorbed. The petitioners have also concealed the fact that they were considered for permanent appointment as per their eligibility as to educational qualification and age, etc., 1 and were wait listed on the basis of number of days worked by them. The petitioners have well comprehended the nature and scope of the settlements and subjected themselves and were wait listed and hence it is not open to them to 1 question or cancel the settlement and claim priority in appointment and they are estopped by conduct. 16. In Chennai circle wait-listed employees were 3164 and out of which 1307 were appointed, which would indicate that 321 persons have worked only for minimum number of days and hence they have not been appointed. The wait listed 321 persons might have been engaged against vacancies until the vacancies were filled up by other senior wait listed temporary employees and such engagement does not confer any right except the right under the first settlement. 17. The wait list lapsed on March 31, 1997 as per the fifth settlement executed on July 30, 1996. Inclusion of a candidate in a merit list does not confer any right for selection as has been held by the Apex Court in Syndicate Bank and others Vs. Shankar Paul and others, AIR 1997 SC 3091 : (1997) 6 SCC 584 and the wait listed persons do not have any further right under the wait list as has been held in Sanjoy Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 4 SCC 283 . 18. It has been pointed out by the respondent that the bona fide settlement will bind on all employees. As per the settlement the names of suitable candidates wait listed in order of their respective categories and the temporary service put in the bank between July 1 to December 31, 1987 or any other date so fixed by the bank, will be valid up to December 1991. As per the settlement the names of suitable candidates wait listed in order of their respective categories and the temporary service put in the bank between July 1 to December 31, 1987 or any other date so fixed by the bank, will be valid up to December 1991. The said cut-off date has been substituted as December 31, 1992 as per the second settlement and by December 31, 1994 as per the fourth settlement. All the messengers vacancies as on December 31, 1994 were filled up in the various zones by drawing candidates from the wait list which was valid up to March 31, 1997 and as such the petitioners are not entitled to claim that the bank should give preference to 321 persons for employment. 19. Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referred to an order dated July 23, 1993, passed in W.P.No. 7872 of 1991 on the file of this Court as well as certain circular issued by the first respondent in support of his contention. 20. Per contra, Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit relied upon the various settlements. It was also contended by Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that the writ petition is not maintainable as in respect of the very same issue an industrial dispute has already been raised and pending before the competent Labour Court. 21. Though Sri N.G.R. Prasad. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the pending industrial dispute will not take in any relief sought for in the writ petition Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent rightly pointed out that the claims made by the members of the petitioner-trade union in the pending industrial dispute definitely take in the reliefs prayed for and this Court called on the learned counsel appearing for either side to produce a copy of the claim statement. As seen from the claim statement, the workmen have prayed for the relief of regular employment in the respondent-bank with all attendant benefits and they have definitely sought for regularisation of their services of temporary employment as seen from the claim statement and relief prayed. The claim statement filed by one of the 321 petitioners could be referred usefully and it reads thus: "14. The claim statement filed by one of the 321 petitioners could be referred usefully and it reads thus: "14. The petitioner wishes to state that he was not aware of the settlements by which the services and the number of days worked by him after interview do not merit consideration by the respondent-bank for eventual absorption in regular employment of the bank. Nor the petitioner was a party as such to the settlements mentioned by the respondent-bank before the Conciliation Officer. 15. In the circumstances and in view of the above, the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-bank in not absorbing the petitioner in regular service despite existence of vacancies in Class IV cadre (messenger, sweeper, waterman, etc), is unjust and illegal on the following grounds: (i) The settlements are repugnant to Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act in that seniors who have entered service earlier are sent out first while retaining the juniors on the ground that the seniors have not completed 240 days. (ii) The termination of service of the petitioner is against the provisions of Para. 522(4) of the Sastri award. 17. In view of the above submissions, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Labour Court be pleased to grant the relief of regular employment in the respondent-bank with all attendant benefits to which the petitioner is legally entitled to." 22. In the circumstances, there is no escape for the petitioner and the objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has to be sustained. It is well settled that the petitioners cannot agitate parallel proceedings and seek remedies before two fora. Already an industrial dispute is pending and it is open to the petitioners to adjudicate upon the same before the Labour Court which is competent to agitate all the claims including regularisation claimed in the writ petition. 23. The fourth settlement relied upon by Sri S. Jayaraman has a bearing on the petitioners' claim. The settlement, dated November 17, 1987 is binding on all the employees as it has been entered into between the union representing the majority of the workmen employed in the State Bank namely All India State Bank of India Staff Federation. The said settlement had been entered u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Clauses 4 to 7 which are relevant are extracted hereunder: "4. The said settlement had been entered u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Clauses 4 to 7 which are relevant are extracted hereunder: "4. Above temporary employees would have been in the bank's temporary service' any time during July 1, 1975 to December 31, 1987 or any other date determined by the bank and within 18 to 26 years of age on the date of initial temporary appointment, besides fulfilling the other prescribed eligibility criteria for appointment in the subordinate cadre subject to Clauses 4(a) and 4(b) infra. (a) The temporary employees, who after termination of their initial appointments acquired a higher qualifications in the High School Final Examination, SSC or matriculation or other equivalent examination in second or third division and are not eligible for being considered for clerical appointment and have not used the said higher qualification to secure employment elsewhere and either working as such or ceased to work, will be given a chance for permanent appointment along with other candidates, as a special case, and this will not be treated as a precedent. It is clearly understood by the federation that in future for purpose of any type of recruitment/appointment either on temporary or permanent capacity in the subordinate cadre, only those candidates will be considered who fulfil the eligibility criteria (educational qualification, viz., less than matriculation) both at the time of initial temporary appointment or permanent absorption. (b) Pending disputes/cases initiated by temporary employees or associations shall be withdrawn by a result of this settlement. 5. A branch/office will be treated as 'establishment' for purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, for the purpose of reckoning aggregate temporary service of 240, 270, 70 or 30 days, as aforesaid, the temporary service put in by a temporary employee, at any of the offices falling within the module concerned will be taken into account as one time measure. 6. Candidates will be appointed in permanent service only if they fulfil the eligibility criteria and are found medically fit, as per the bank's guidelines. 7. Interviews will be conducted by selection committee to determine suitability/ unsuitability of temporary employees for permanent appointment in the bank. After completion of interviews, interview committee will finalise panels for full time and part time appointments of suitable candidates for messengerial and non-messengerial positions. Names of suitable candidates will be wait listed in order of their respective categories (viz. 7. Interviews will be conducted by selection committee to determine suitability/ unsuitability of temporary employees for permanent appointment in the bank. After completion of interviews, interview committee will finalise panels for full time and part time appointments of suitable candidates for messengerial and non-messengerial positions. Names of suitable candidates will be wait listed in order of their respective categories (viz. B and C) and length of aggregate temporary service put in the bank between July 1, 1975 to December 31, 1987 or any of the date so fixed by the bank, these panels be valid up to December 1991." 24. Stipulation 11 of the settlement also provides those temporary employees who will not be given chance for permanent employment. It is not necessary to go into those details. That was the first settlement entered on November 17, 1987. Even in the subsequent settlements entered between the respondent-bank and the employees' federation reiterate the same excepting for the difference with respect to the period covered and modifications have been agreed to by substituting the date, month and year. The last of the settlements refers to the earlier settlements, dated November 17, 1987, July 18, 1988, October, 27, 1988 and January 7, 1991 entered between the parties and also a specific reference is found with respect to the settlement giving a chance to eligible temporary/daily wage/casual employees in the subordinate cadre are being considered for permanent employment in the bank. 25. The last of the agreement stipulates that in terms of the conciliation proceedings held on June 9, 1995 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Hyderabad in partial modification of earlier settlement, it is both the panels of temporary employees, daily wage/casual employees will be kept alive up to March 1997 for filling up vacancies existing/arrived at as on December 31, 1994 as per the norms agreed to between the bank and the federation. It has been further stipulated that all messengerial positions in the subordinate cadre including part time attendants specifically provided as leave reserve will be filled before March 31, 1997. As seen from the settlement, the rights of temporary employees who have completed 240 days of continuous work during the period of 12 calendar months, if any could be enforced only in terms of the settlement as the settlement is binding on all the members including the writ petition. 26. As seen from the settlement, the rights of temporary employees who have completed 240 days of continuous work during the period of 12 calendar months, if any could be enforced only in terms of the settlement as the settlement is binding on all the members including the writ petition. 26. Even as per the settlement filling up of vacancies for the post of sweepers, watchmen, etc., other than messengers are in accordance with the settlement of the majority union and the members of the writ petitioner-union who have claimed the post of messengers have no right and they cannot object to the bank recruiting fresh hands for the said post of Sweepers and watchman, etc. The wait list of messengers which arose up to 1994 was kept open up to March 31, 1999 and as there are no vacancies for the post of messengers in terms of the settlement, the petitioners have no right to compel the respondents to employ them even in the cadre of messengers and at any rate the petitioner-union cannot compel the respondent to employ them even for the posts other than messengers as well. Thus in any view of the matter the writ petition has to fail. 27. Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied upon the judgment of P. SATHASIVAM. J, in W.P.No. 7872 of 1991 on the file of this Court in support of his contention. This Court finds that the said pronouncement on facts will have no application to the present ease as in that case the learned Judge was concerned with the claims of sub-staff who had been interviewed pursuant to the advertisement in dailies and prepared in 1989 together with list of those in the said list who had been absorbed in the vacancies that arose up to March 31, 1977. Only in respect of those persons the learned Judge had issued directions in respect of the particular category of staff. The said order will in no way advance the petitioners' case. 28. Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, relied upon the. pronouncement of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Only in respect of those persons the learned Judge had issued directions in respect of the particular category of staff. The said order will in no way advance the petitioners' case. 28. Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, relied upon the. pronouncement of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 , in support of his contention that no right has accrued to the writ-petitioners merely in terms of the settlement the petitioners are to be considered, unless after verification in terms of the stipulations agreed to in the settlement, the petitioners had been recruited and appointed to the post. There is no quarrel over the legal proposition that the successful candidates do not get an indefeasible right to be appointed and the authorities are not bound to fill up all or any of the vacancies. The Apex Court held thus, in Shankar Balwant Lokhande (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande and Another, (1995) 3 SCC 413 : "6. It cannot be said that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted." 29. Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, contended that merely because the petitioners have been placed in the wait list they do not get any vested right to get appointment and relied upon the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, (supra), wherein the Apex Court held thus: "3. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering had applied for and stood selected as technician. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering had applied for and stood selected as technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on merit was 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed an OA in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking forward to his appointment in accordance with the selection, instead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus, defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent- authorities to appoint him as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was sought. Stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appointment. Selection was made only for filling up 480 vacancies, after the absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market and, therefore, directions sought could not be given. We find that the reasons given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that anyone below his ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment. 4. For subsequent vacancies, everyone in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction." This pronouncement squarely applies to the facts of the present case and there is no escape. 30. In a recent pronouncement their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Shankar Paul and Ors. (supra), had occasion to consider the right of empanelled candidates for absorption in respect of temporary attenders on permanent basis and in that context, the Apex Court held thus in Syndicate Bank and others Vs. 30. In a recent pronouncement their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Shankar Paul and Ors. (supra), had occasion to consider the right of empanelled candidates for absorption in respect of temporary attenders on permanent basis and in that context, the Apex Court held thus in Syndicate Bank and others Vs. Shankar Paul and others, AIR 1997 SC 3091 : (1997) 6 SCC 584 : "7. Till 1982, the branches of the appellant-bank in Calcutta region were recruiting persons locally to work as temporary attenders in leave vacancies. In view of the revised procedure prescribed by the Government of India in respect of such temporary appointments, the Calcutta Regional Office of the appellant-bank issued a circular to all of its branches on August 14, 1982, instructing all the branches under it to discontinue the old practice from June 1, 1982 and appoint only empanelled candidates. The regional office was to prepare a panel of eligible candidates, after calling names from the local/district Employment Exchange, and split it up branch wise. Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter. Names of the respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period February 7, 1987 to February 6, 1988. By its letter, dated February 1, 1987, the bank had informed the respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the bank. Considering the object with which the panel was prepared and the fact that it was an yearly panel expiring on February 6, 1988, we are of the opinion that the respondents ' did not get any right, because of inclusion of their names in the said panel for permanent absorption in the service of the bank. Whatever, conditional right they had come to an end with the expiry of the panel. Whatever, conditional right they had come to an end with the expiry of the panel. The claim of the respondents, as contained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively." In the light of this, the contention put forward by Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, are well supported by the above pronouncements and consequently, this I Court holds that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. 31. It is made clear that this order will not in any way prejudice the claims of the writ-petitioners in the pending industrial dispute which shall be decided on merits by the Labour Court and according to law. 32. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, writ miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective cost.