Judgment S. U. KAMDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 20-10-2003. By the said order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly stated as under: ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 is carrying on business of manufacture of rubber belts. The appellant is a Union representing the workmen working in the said respondent-establishment. The appellant is a registered union. There are two other Unions in the said establishment of which one Nagpur Kamgar Union is a recognised union in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. ( 3 ) ON or about 29th November, 1993 a settlement was arrived at by the respondent-Company with recognised union - Nagpur Kamgar Union (hereinafter referred as ngu ). The appellant was not invited for negotiations and settlement which was arrived at by and between the respondent No. 1 and the said ngu. Accordingly, appellant filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) no. 74/1994, alleging discriminatory treatment to the members of the appellant- union. On expiry of settlement dated 29th November, 1993, a fresh charter of demand was submitted to the respondent-Company. However, since the appellant-Union was not invited for negotiations in the charter of demand, the respondent filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 1104/1996 in the industrial Court inter alia for interim relief that they should be invited by the respondent-Company for participating in the said settlement process in respect of charter of demand submitted by them. The negotiations were not fructified and, therefore, settlement was not arrived at. Thus the matter was proceeded with for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer. Even before the Conciliation officer, the matter was not settled and he filed failure report and the matter was thereafter referred to the Industrial Court. ( 4 ) IN this complaint, the appellant-Union contended that benefit of both the settlements of 1993 and 1998 should be extended to the members of the appellant-union also. The basic contention is that even when settlements are challenged by the appellant-union still they are entitled to benefit thereof. ( 4 ) IN this complaint, the appellant-Union contended that benefit of both the settlements of 1993 and 1998 should be extended to the members of the appellant-union also. The basic contention is that even when settlements are challenged by the appellant-union still they are entitled to benefit thereof. It is further contended by the appellant-union that insofar as the obligation of the members of the appellant-union is concerned to give higher figure of production, they have complied with the same right from 1993 and thus, they are entitled to benefits of settlement, particularly, higher wages and higher pay-scales prescribed thereunder. It is further contended that even though they are not accepting the said settlement yet, they are entitled to benefit which is acquired by the other respondents. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant-union has refused to accept the said settlement and, therefore, not entitled to the benefits thereunder. It is further contended that the settlement which was arrived at under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding only between the parties to the settlement and not to third parties who are not parties to the said settlement. It is also further contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that the settlement is not in the course of conciliation proceeding and, therefore, provisions of section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 are not applicable. It is, therefore, contended by the respondents to the written statement that members of the appellant-union have not complied with the obligations as contemplated by settlements of 1993 and 1998 of giving increased productions, it is further contended that the appellant-Union had not accepted the said settlements by filing necessary undertaking and thus, they are not entitled to extended benefit thereof and those who refused to accept settlement cannot claim benefit of the said settlements. ( 6 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the industrial Court framed following preliminary issues for determination :