Judgment MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ petition Nos.6967, 3297, 5771, 5772, 5773, 5774, 5775, 5776, 6894, 6895 and 18061 of 1999 as common questions of fact are involved in the same. However, facts have been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.6967 of 1999. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated August 7, 1998, annexure P.4 passed by the Labour Court, union Territory, Chandigarh. 3. The petitioner has averred that in his claim statement before the Labour Court, he has categorically stated that he had never resigned, rather his services were terminated without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation and as such the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated. It has been further averred that respondent No.2 took the signatures of the workers on blank papers, blank pay registers and blank vouchers so that it could escape from prosecution under the Minimum Wages Act for mot paying the wages according to the Act. The petitioner further averred that no account was ever settled between him and the management. Rather his services were arbitrarily terminated. 4. Notice of motion was issued. Respondent No.2 filed his written statement. 5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of counsel for the parties and have gone through the petition and the annexures thereto. 6. Settlement was arrived at between the management and the workers who had come before the Assistant Labour Commissioner through the Union. The settlement Exhibit M-10 dated May 15, 1991 is reproduced as under: "there was strike from February 25, 1991. After going through the detailed discussion and number of conciliation meetings held by the undersigned, you are suggested to advice your member worker of Essen Dinki, 22, Industrial Area, Phase II Chandigarh and Northland Engineering Limited, 368, industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh except who have resigned or whose services stand terminated and have settled their accounts to call off the strike and report for duty immediately". 7. From the settlement it is clear that those workers had either resigned or whose services had been terminated and who have settled their accounts were not to join duty while the rest as per the settlement were to join. The resignation of petitioner is Exhibit Ml on the file of the labour Court. 7. From the settlement it is clear that those workers had either resigned or whose services had been terminated and who have settled their accounts were not to join duty while the rest as per the settlement were to join. The resignation of petitioner is Exhibit Ml on the file of the labour Court. These workers now cannot turn round and say that they had never submitted their resignations. If their resignations have been taken under coercion or fraudulent means by the management, this should have been brought to the notice of the Assistant Labour commissioner, who had reconciled the matter between both the parties vide settlement Exhibit m 10. 8. The workers who came before the labour Court did not deny their signatures on the resignation letters but only said that these were taken on blank pieces of papers. This stand of theirs cannot be believed at such a belated stage. 9. With the above observations, the above mentioned writ petitions are dismissed.