JUDGMENT C.K. Prasad, J. 1. In both the writ petitions common question of law arises and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, handed over the award on September 29, 1986 (Document-12 in M.P. No. 466/1987. Document-12 in M.P. No. 468/1987) and directed for reinstatement of the workmen in service, but without back wages. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit i.e. employer seeks to challenge the same on the ground that the counsel engaged in the Labour Court had no authority to file compromise of the dispute. Such compromise was arrived at by the petitioner in other cases and the matter pointedly came up before this Court for consideration in M.P. No. 1406/1987 disposed of on July 24, 1997. In the said case, it has been held as follows: "In this petition the only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner Bank that the Counsel engaged in the Labour Court had no authority to file a compromise petition cannot be accepted. It is unthinkable that the counsel engaged would have acted without instructions from the officer incharge of the Bank. The mere fact that no formal resolution of the Bank existed is no ground to allow the Bank to contend that the compromise effected by the counsel engaged by it was without any authority. No approach was made by the Bank to the Labour Court for recalling the Award made on the written settlement of the Parties. This Court, therefore, declines to set aside the award on the ground urged an behalf of the Bank of the alleged want of authority with their counsel engaged in the Labour Court to agree for an amicable settlement". The present writ petitions are squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in the said case. 3. In the result, I do not find any merit in either of the writ petitions and both are dismissed accordingly. Security Amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners