P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN C. J. , A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition was filed by the Baragah co-operative Sugar Mills Limited challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal and a subsequent order of that Tribunal dated march 16, 1995 in respect of opposite party no. 2 who was a workman in the petitioner co-operative Sugar Mills. The workman was removed from service with effect from June 22, 1977 by the Management. A dispute was raised on his behalf which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal in I. D. Case no. 42 of 1980. While the dispute was so pending, the workman settled the dispute with the Management as is clear from annexure 5 to 7. The Management agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 in lieu of the entire claim of the workman. The workman agreed to receive the same. This compromise petition was filed before the Industrial tribunal supported by the documents showing the payments made to the workman and the receipt issued by the workman. The petition was filed by the Management requesting the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as per the terms set out in the compromise petition. The Tribunal by annexure-10 order dated March 16, 1991 dismissed the compromise petition. It appears from the order that the Tribunal took note of the fact that the workman was not present when the compromise petition was taken up for consideration by the Tribunal. It took the view that since the parties settled their disputes outside the Tribunal and the workman was not present, the Tribunal cannot compel either of the parties to admit the terms of the compromise and hence the compromise was liable to be rejected. It, thus, rejected the compromise petition. Thereafter the Tribunal answering the reference by Annexure-1 order dated May 30, 1991, set aside the termination order with effect from June 22, 1977 and directed the reinstatement of the workman with 75% back wages with effect from June 22, 1977 till the date of the award. It, thus, rejected the compromise petition. Thereafter the Tribunal answering the reference by Annexure-1 order dated May 30, 1991, set aside the termination order with effect from June 22, 1977 and directed the reinstatement of the workman with 75% back wages with effect from June 22, 1977 till the date of the award. ( 2 ) IN challenging the order at annexure-10 and the award at Annexure-1, it is contended by learned counsel for the management that Annexure-10 clearly indicates that there was final settlement of the dispute between the Management and the workman and the Tribunal was not right in not accepting their settlement and in passing the order at Annexure-10 refusing to accept the settlement arrived at by the parties. It is submitted that it is open to the Management and the Workmen to settle the dispute and the tribunal was bound to accept the settlement arrived at by the parties so long as it was opposed to any law or opposed to public policy. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the management that pursuant to the settlement compensation was paid and the same was received by the workman and in that situation, the compromise petition ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. The absence of the workman before the Tribunal on a particular day was not a ground to reject the settlement bona fide arrived at between the parties. It is further contended that by the passing of the award at Annexure-1 ignoring the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction and hence the same was also liable to be set aside. In answer, learned counsel for the workman pointed out that even though the workman had entered into a compromise as stated by the Management, the Management has not paid the entire money to the workman as per the settlement. Instead of the sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 agreed to be paid, the Management has paid only a sum of Rs. 32,232. 66, after allegedly setting off certain amounts drawn in advance by the workman and the setting off that amount was not part of the settlement and the amount of Rs. 7,767. 34 still remains outstanding. It is therefore, submitted that the tribunal was justified in not accepting the settlement. 32,232. 66, after allegedly setting off certain amounts drawn in advance by the workman and the setting off that amount was not part of the settlement and the amount of Rs. 7,767. 34 still remains outstanding. It is therefore, submitted that the tribunal was justified in not accepting the settlement. ( 3 ) IN the affidavit filed on behalf of the workman, there is no dispute that the claim of the workman was settled in view of the compromise petition at Annexure-5. The dispute is only whether the Management was justified in setting off a sum of Rs. 7,767. 34 while paying the sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 as agreed upon. As per Annexure-7, the workman granted a receipt that he had received Rs. 32,232. 66 and the same was also produced before the Industrial Tribunal. Whatever it be, the fact that the workman did not present himself before the Tribunal when the compromise petition was taken up for orders, is not a ground to hold that the compromise is not acceptable. On the other hand the normal inference is that the workman had no objection to the acceptance of the compromise filed. In our view, the Tribunal has acted perversely in rejecting the compromise petition on the ground that the workman was not present. It should have in any event held an enquiry whether the compromise was arrived at. The other reason given by the tribunal that in the absence of the party it has to reject the compromise is equally untenable. It is open to the parties to settle their dispute even when the industrial dispute is pending before the Tribunal. No illegality was alleged or proved to justify the rejection of the compromise. In the case on hand, the Tribunal was bound to accept the compromise and at least to hold an enquiry to satisfy itself that it was a fact arrived at. In other words (sic), so long as it is not contended that the compromise made between the parties was illegal, the tribunal was bound to accept the compromise made between the workman and the management. In this situation, we are of the view that Annexure-10 order requires to be quashed on the ground that the same was passed illegally. Once we quash the order at annexure-10, obviously the Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction in passing the award at annexure-1. In this situation, we are of the view that Annexure-10 order requires to be quashed on the ground that the same was passed illegally. Once we quash the order at annexure-10, obviously the Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction in passing the award at annexure-1. In that view, that award at annexure-1 has also to be quashed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) HAVING done so, the logical course (sic) would be to remand the proceeding to the Tribunal. But in this case we do not think it necessary to adopt that course. We feel that taking note of the circumstances as a whole, the Management must be asked to pay the entire sum of Rs. 40,000/ as per the compromise arrived at. Learned counsel for the workman pointed out that there has not even been compliance with Section 17-B of this Act and only a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 was paid by the Management to the workman on that account. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the circumstances as a whole, we think that it would be proper in the ends of justice to direct the Management to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 to the workman within a period of three months from today. In case the said amount is not paid, it is open to the workman to recover the same in accordance with law. ( 6 ) WE, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the orders at Annexure-10 and the award at Annexure-1. But we direct the management-writ petitioner to pay the workman-opposite party No. 2 a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 within a period of three month from today, failing which the workman will be entitled to recover the same in accordance with law. If the amount is not paid within three months as directed, the amount will bear interest @ 12% per annum from this date.