Judgment :- A. K. RAJAN This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.A. No. 243 of 2001 in I.D. No. 263 of 2000 and quash its order, dated February 6, 2002. A reference was made to the Labour Court as to whether the persons named in the reference working in the canteen of E.I.D. Parry were employees of the factory. It was pending in I.D. No. 263 of 2001. While so, a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been arrived between the parties concerned on January 10, 1986 and it was modified by another settlement, dated July 26, 1990. According to Clause 2 of the settlement, the workmen who are listed in the Annexure-A and parties to the settlement shall be taken into canteen roll of the management effective from April 1, 2001 and their respective date of entry into the management service shall be deemed to be from April 1, 2001 and it also contains the particulars relating to pay-structures, Dearness allowance, special personal allowance, conveyance allowance, house rent allowance, lump sum etc., under Clause 12, it was agreed that a joint memo annexing therewith a copy of the settlement shall be filed before the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. No. 263 of 2000 in terms of the settlement. This settlement, dated January 10, 1986, contained a paragraph relating to period of settlement as follows : "The provision of this settlement shall come into force for implementation only from the date on which the Labour Court, Vellore, passes the award in I.D. No. 263 of 2000 in terms of this settlement. Otherwise, this settlement will not become operative. On passing of the award in terms thereon, the provisions of the settlement shall be enforced for a period of five years from the date it comes into force as stated therein." But, this portion was deleted by the settlement dated July 23, 1990. Therefore, the original settlement has been modified deleting the last paragraph relating to period of settlement. Subsequent to these settlements, the management filed I.A. No. 243 of 2001 seeking for passing an award as per the terms of the settlement. The Labour Court has considered this application in detail. Therefore, the original settlement has been modified deleting the last paragraph relating to period of settlement. Subsequent to these settlements, the management filed I.A. No. 243 of 2001 seeking for passing an award as per the terms of the settlement. The Labour Court has considered this application in detail. It also comes to the conclusion that no undue influence or coercion on the part of the management and hence it is not illegal. But, even then it did not pass the award as per the terms of the settlement, but dismissed the application. The reason for dismissing the petition and not passing the award based on the settlement is that one Udayan has not signed the settlement. Admittedly, the said Udayan was not in service on the date of the agreement and there is a dispute as to whether he was dismissed from service or resigned voluntarily. Apart from that, the Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that the management was under a doubt as to whether the agreement was legally valid. This doubt the Labour Court has entertained because the last paragraph in the first settlement related (sic) to the period of settlement. The Labour Court has over looked the fact, that paragraph had been deleted by the subsequent settlement. Inasmuch as that paragraph has been deleted, the entire finding that the management was under a doubt as to whether the agreement was valid does not have any basis. The Labour Court therefore comes to the conclusion on the terms of the reference to be decided to the Court was differently settled between the parties and therefore it refused to pass the award on the basis of the agreement and dismissed the application. Aggrieved against that, the present writ petition has been filed. Sri K. M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that it is the preliminary issue against which the writ petition has been filed and this Court cannot entertain the writ petition as the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration and others 1983 Indlaw SC 137 : 1983 Indlaw SC 137 : 1983 Indlaw SC 137. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration and others 1983 Indlaw SC 137 : 1983 Indlaw SC 137 : 1983 Indlaw SC 137. In this case the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of invoking the provision of Articles 226 and 136 on a preliminary issue raised before the Labour Court and orders passed thereon. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, this is only a preliminary issue whether the award has to be passed or not. Considering the entire facts to the case, the argument that it is the preliminary issue that has been brought to this Court is not acceptable. The question here is as to whether the agreement is valid and whether the award can be passed on the basis of the agreement. Therefore, that is not a preliminary issue, but refers to the merits of the matter. Even though Labour Court has passed an award in the I.A., even then it does not amount to deciding the preliminary issue alone and therefore the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent does not have any relevance to the facts of (sic) the present case. Sri Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court in Herbertsons Ltd. v. Their Workmen and others 1976 Indlaw SC 208 : 1976 Indlaw SC 208 has held, the settlement cannot be judged on the touchstone of the number of principles which are laid down by this Court for adjudication. It is also held that : "There may be several factors that may influence parties to come to a settlement as a phased endeavour in the course of collective bargaining. Once cordiality is established between the employer and labour in arriving at in settlement which operates well for the period that it is in force, there is always a likelihood of further advances in the shape of improved emoluments by voluntary settlement avoiding friction and unhealthy litigation. This is the quintessence of settlement which Courts and Tribunals should endeavour to encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. This is the quintessence of settlement which Courts and Tribunals should endeavour to encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. The Tribunal fell into an error in invoking the principles that should govern in adjudicating a dispute regarding dearness allowance in judging whether the settlement was just and fair." He also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguli and others 1958 Indlaw SC 68 : 1958 Indlaw SC 68. In this case, the Supreme Court has held : "...... There can, therefore, be no doubt that if an industrial dispute before a Tribunal is amicably settled, the Tribunal would immediately agree to make an award in terms of the settlement between the parties. ......" He referred to another judgment of this Court in Management of Binny Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and others 1999 (95) FJR 262 where this Court has held : "It is not the object of the Industrial law that disputes should be kept alive for long number of years or the adjudication should be dilatory. If the parties themselves have reached the settlement, that is the best possible manner of resolving the disputes, and when it is the case pleaded before the Tribunal that all the workmen concerned have in fact, reached such settlements, such plea, should be examined, and should be decided before embarking on a long drawn enquiry, which may turn out to be wholly a futile exercise, if the settlement is found to be fair and legal. The Tribunal in the impugned order has lost sight of this object of industrial adjudication. Rules of procedure are designed to aid in achieving the substantive object of justice for the parties, as speedily as possible. If the workmen, after knowing the contents of the settlement, had agreed to withdraw the disputes, it is not for the union to come in the way of such withdrawal and continue the dispute, for the benefit of the office-bearers of the union. The machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act is not for the benefit of unions. If the workmen, after knowing the contents of the settlement, had agreed to withdraw the disputes, it is not for the union to come in the way of such withdrawal and continue the dispute, for the benefit of the office-bearers of the union. The machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act is not for the benefit of unions. In situations, where their members have by separate settlements resolved their disputes with the management, it is not for the union to keep alive the dispute, which has been brought to an end by the workmen who may have chosen to enter into individual settlement with the management." Relying upon these judgments, the learned senior counsel submitted that this agreement was reached between all the parties to the dispute; the concerned workmen did not dispute this settlement; and it is only the union dispute the settlement. When the concerned workers themselves agree to the settlement, the union cannot object to such settlement. This argument of the learned senior counsel is acceptable. The Supreme Court has categorically held when there are settlement arrived at between the parties, the Court must be eager to accept such application and pass the award in terms of the settlement, unless such settlement was arrived at by influence or coercion. In this case, the parties were aware as to what is the settlement they arrived at. According to them this is a gain in the bargain. Such settlement can be encouraged by all the Tribunal including the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri K. M. Ramesh expressed the apprehension that the dispute referred to is different from the settlement arrived at. His contention is that the settlement does not refer to the writ petitioners taken to the employees of the management and treated as employees of the canteen only. The learned senior counsel, Sri A. L. Somayaji has stated across the Bar that the phrase "parties to the settlement shall be taken into canteen roll of the management" means they are in the roll of the factory and they are factory's employees from the appointed date (sic) April 1, 2001. This statement is recorded and the learned counsel Sri K. M. Ramesh has also accepted that once such statement is recorded, he has no objection for passing the award. This statement is recorded and the learned counsel Sri K. M. Ramesh has also accepted that once such statement is recorded, he has no objection for passing the award. In view of the categorical statement made by the learned senior counsel that the terms "employment under the management" means employment under the factory which means they are employees of the factory, the dispute which is subject-matter of the reference has been settled between the parties as per the terms agreed between the parties. The Labour Court should have passed an award on the basis of the settlement. Instead of that, the Labour Court misdirected itself and held that it cannot pass an award on the basis of the settlement. In view of this specific settlement, the writ petition filed by the management has to be allowed and the award passed by the Labour Court is to be set aside. Consequently, the Labour Court is directed to pass an award in terms of agreement within a week from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.