AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) IT appears that a notice dated March 26, 2002, has been challenged before this Court whereunder the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal, informed the company that it has got the exemption from the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and Rules upto March 31, 2000. Such exemption will not be continued from April 1, 2002. In effect, the Employees' State Insurance Scheme will be applicable to the employees under the Act on and from April 1, 2002. The petitioners made this writ petition for the purpose of interpretation of the memorandum of settlement arrived at before the conciliation officer and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, dated November 22, 1995. Precisely, they have taken the scope to the Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of such settlement which provides for duration of limit. The relevant portion of such agreement is quoted hereunder:"save as otherwise specified hereinbefore, this settlement shall come into force from the date of signing of this memorandum of settlement and shall remain for three years, i. e. , October 30, 1998. Thereafter, it will continue to be in force until terminated by due notice in accordance with law. " ( 2 ) SUCH part, according to this Court, has three sub-parts. Firstly, there is a non obstante effect in respect of the earlier clauses. Secondly, the period of settlement is fixed up to three years, i. e. , from October 30, 1998, and thirdly, even thereafter it will continue or be in force until terminated by due notice in accordance with law. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to this Court, if there is a dispute in respect of the terms of the settlement arrived at before the conciliation officer and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the appropriate forum being the Boards, Courts or Tribunals for the labour and industrial dispute is/are likely to be invoked. ( 4 ) THE petitioner's union has taken a plea that the dispute is totally covered under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the forum for labour and industrial cases need not be invoked but the same can be interpreted by the writ Court if the jurisdiction is invoked. I am sorry to say that such interpretation cannot be accepted not only for the legal parameters but also on the factual aspect of the matter. Therefore, the forum for labour and industrial cases need not be invoked but the same can be interpreted by the writ Court if the jurisdiction is invoked. I am sorry to say that such interpretation cannot be accepted not only for the legal parameters but also on the factual aspect of the matter. It is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the union invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not disputing the settlement. Secondly, by virtue of non obstante clause in para 11 the medical facilities are eliminated, being Clause 5 of the settlement. Thus, I find that unless and until the Employees' State Insurance Scheme is introduced, medical allowance of Rs. 2 per day will be applicable. Therefore, factually it is hit by such clause. Secondly, the proviso under Section 9-A says that no notice is required to be served for effecting any change if such change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award. Thirdly, I do not think that scope and ambit of Section 10 is unavailable to such petitioners because of the reason that if there is any change of such settlement, the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer or the Deputy Labour Commissioner has to be invoked first and from such decision the matter can be referred to the Board, Court or Tribunal made for the labour and industrial cases. Therefore, strictly speaking any change as per Section 9-A being the subject matter of the Fourth Schedule has to be routed through the conciliation process and once it is routed through the conciliation process and a dispute arising out of the same, the jurisdiction of the Board, Court or Tribunal cannot be eliminated. That is the true interpretation of Section 9-A covered by the Fourth Schedule. The Fourth Schedule is the substantive schedule but not the procedural schedule. Therefore, if there is any change of such subject, jurisdiction as per the procedural schedule has to be followed. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, taking into totality of the matter even on the factual basis that it is made for the employees' benefit in the case of sickness, maternity and employment injury which is protected under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and under the agreement cannot be disturbed in any manner whatsoever particularly at the instance of the employees' union or any so called union, who are the ultimate beneficiaries. ( 6 ) HENCE, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs