Judgment :- The petitioner Neyveli Lignite Corporation I.T.I. Apprentice Welfare Association, filed the writ petition seeking for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the agreement dated May 18, 1995 entered between respondents 1 to 4 and respondents 5 to 19 before respondents 20 and 21 and to quash the same as null and void and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to reserve the 50% of semi-skilled/unskilled and skilled jobs to the members of the petitioner's Association in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "N.L.C.)". The case of the petitioner is that the members of the petitioner Association have completed I.T.I. Apprenticeship training under the N.L.C. on various trades. During the period of two and half years apprenticeship, the members were given stipend. According to the petitioner, the members of the petitioner Association were given training in different trade only to work with the N.L.C. in skilled position. After completion of the apprenticeship training, the members of the petitioner Association have registered with the Employment Exchange on the fond hope that they will be absorbed in the N.L.C. However, the respondents concluded a bipartite agreement between respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 19 before respondents No. 20 and 21 to absorb candidates for the posts of unskilled/semiskilled and skilled from the contract labourers from Indico-serve and displaced persons, who have surrendered the property for expansion activity of the N.L.C. As per the agreement, the contract labourers, who are the members of the Indico-serve were agreed to be absorbed. The interest of the members of the petitioner Association is not taken care of. The members of the petitioner Association are entitled to 50 percent of employment as per the Central Government letter in D.O. No. DGET 1/85 AP dated January 24, 1983, whereby guidelines were issued by a Committee of Secretaries for absorption of trained apprentices. The said Government Order was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arul P. and 237 Others v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others in W.A. No. 375 of 1995, etc., batch, 1995 MAD 408 (Mad-DB). Mr. The said Government Order was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arul P. and 237 Others v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others in W.A. No. 375 of 1995, etc., batch, 1995 MAD 408 (Mad-DB). Mr. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to supra, the members of the petitioner association, who obtained training under the Apprentices Act are entitled to 50 per cent of the employment in the respondent Corporation in various cadres and any agreement entered into between the various trade Unions with the N.L.C. has to be set aside as the interest of the members of the petitioner Association has not been taken care of in the said settlement. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the N.L.C. by filing counter contended that the settlement, which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition, was a tripartite settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 entered into between the Joint Council of Trade Unions of N.L.C. and the Management of N.L.C. on May 18, 1995 in the presence of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Government of Tamil Nadu and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Madras (Central) in the course of conciliation proceedings held before the above said Officers of the State and Central Government, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 20 and 21. As the petitioner association was not composed of employees of the Corporation and they were not parties to the settlement dated May 18, 1995, and they are total strangers to the settlement who have no locus standi to challenge the settlement. The settlement has been in force for more than eight years and pursuant to the settlement, more than 2900 Indico-serve contract workers have been regularised by an absorption. The present writ petition is filed challenging the settlement of the year 1995 and the same has to be dismissed on the ground of lapse. He further contended that the petitioner cannot have reliance of the Division Bench judgment reported in Arul P. and 237 Others v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others (supra), in their favour as the same has been set aside by the Supreme Court. Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submitted that the petitioner is not a party to the settlement. Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submitted that the petitioner is not a party to the settlement. In such circumstances, he cannot seek for quashing the settlement, which is arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of the Apprentices Act, 1961 has been considered by the Supreme Court and when everything was equal between the candidates, then only apprentice trainees are entitled to preference as held by the Supreme Court. The petitioner association cannot have any legal right to have the settlement arrived at between the trade unions of N.L.C. and the Management of N.L.C. before the statutory authorities set aside. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the members of the petitioner association obtained apprenticeship training under the N.L.C. However, that itself, I am of the view, would not give any legal right to the petitioner either to have 50 per cent reservation for employment or to have the settlement arrived at between the various trade unions of the N.L.C. and the Management of the N.L.C. under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act set aside. The settlement contemplated regularisation by absorption in a phased manner of workers of Indico-serve, a co-operative society formed to execute the work entrusted to it by N.L.C. by utilizing the members of the Society. Much reliance has been placed on the decision reported in 1996 WLR 215 by Mr. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to advance the case of the petitioner. The ratio laid down in the said decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court on October 3, 1996 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5285-5328 of 1996 by approving the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others, 1995 SC 1775. The ratio laid down in the said decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court on October 3, 1996 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5285-5328 of 1996 by approving the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others, 1995 SC 1775. In the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation case, the Supreme Court while construing Section 22 of the Apprentices Act which provides that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training, unless there be a condition in the contract to the contrary, has given certain conditions to be kept in mind while dealing with the claim or the trainees to get employment, which are as follows : "12. ..... (1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. (2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal 1987 SC 318 would permit this. (3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same could be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given. (4) The training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained year-wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are seniors." * In the Civil Appeal referred above, the Supreme Court has categorically held as follows : "We are of the view that this Court has clearly laid down that the Apprentices/Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the Service Regulations/Rules. The apprentice have no right to be appointed in preference to the other applicant." * So, the plank of contention that 50 percent of the vacancies has to be reserved for the persons, who underwent the apprenticeship training in the N.L.C. cannot have any legs to stand. The apprentice have no right to be appointed in preference to the other applicant." * So, the plank of contention that 50 percent of the vacancies has to be reserved for the persons, who underwent the apprenticeship training in the N.L.C. cannot have any legs to stand. It is well settled that there is always an underlying assumption that a settlement reached with the help of Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable and could therefore safely be made binding not only on the workmen belonging to the Unions signing the settlement, but also on others. The above position of law has been declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Barauni Refineries Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others, 1990 SC 601), and the abovesaid case has been referred to with approval in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Limited Workers Welfare Association and Another v. Management of I.T.C. Limited, 2002 SC 82. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as follows : "2. What follows from a conspectus of these decisions is that a settlement which is a product of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight and consideration, more so when a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding. The settlement can only be ignored in exceptional circumstances viz., if it is demonstrably unjust, unfair or the result of mala fides such as corrupt motives on the part of those who were instrumental in effecting the settlement. That apart, the settlement has to be judged as a whole, taking an overall view. The settlement can only be ignored in exceptional circumstances viz., if it is demonstrably unjust, unfair or the result of mala fides such as corrupt motives on the part of those who were instrumental in effecting the settlement. That apart, the settlement has to be judged as a whole, taking an overall view. The various terms and clauses of settlement cannot be examined in piecemeal and in vacuum." * In view of the abovesaid position of law to the effect that the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1995 MAD 408 (supra) on which alone the petitioners rest their case had been reversed by the Supreme Court, in the light of the statutory provision of Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, the scope of which has been considered by the Supreme Court in 1995 SC 1775 (supra) referred above, by clearly laying down that the apprentice has no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in 1990 SC 601 (supra) and 2002 SC 82 (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for granting the relief of quashing the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act in a conciliation proceedings and for further issuance of mandamus as prayed for. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.