ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURT DATED 18-11-1998. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 WERE WORKING IN THE PETITIONER COMPANY. IN 1993 THEY RECEIVED PROMOTIONS AND THE PAY SCALE NOW GIVEN TO THEM WAS RS 625-45-850-50-1600. THEY FILED A WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT CLAIMING THAT THIS SCALE WAS A NON-EXISTING SCALE AND THAT THE NEXT SCALE FOR PROMOTION FOR THEM WAS THE SCALE STARTING AT RS 900. THEY CLAIMED THAT THE OTHER WORKMEN HAD BEEN PROMOTED TO THE SCALE OF RS 900 AND, THEREFORE, THEY WERE ALSO ENTITLED TO THE SAME SCALE. 2. IT APPEARS THAT THE ARGUMENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION WERE OVER BY 24-11-1997. HOWEVER, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED ONLY ON 18-11-1998. THE HIGH COURT HAS ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECTED THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE FITTED INTO THE SCALE OF PAY STARTING AT RS 710-1335. HENCE THIS APPEAL. 3. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HIGH COURT THAT THERE WAS NO EXISTING PAY SCALE OF RS 625 IS NOT CORRECT. A SETTLEMENT DATED 9-8-1986 BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVE UNION AND THE APPELLANTS IS SHOWN TO US. IN THAT SETTLEMENT THERE IS A SCALE STARTING AT RS 625. THEREAFTER THERE IS ANOTHER SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT ON 8-8-1990. BY THIS A PROMOTIONAL POLICY WAS INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-7-1988. A THIRD SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT ON 25-9-1992. IN THIS SETTLEMENT THE SCALE STARTING AT RS 625 WAS REVISED TO 9 RS 1460. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN 1993, WHEN THE PETITIONERS FILED THE WRIT PETITION THERE WAS AN EXISTING SCALE OF RS 625. 4. WHILST THE PETITION WAS PENDING, A SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT ON 12-1-1994 WHEREIN THE SCALE OF RS 1460 (WHICH IS THE REVISED SCALE OF RS 625) IS CATEGORICALLY RECOGNISED. THE RESPONDENTS HAVE IN PARA 2 OF THEIR REJOINDER, FILED IN THE HIGH COURT, ADMITTED THAT SUCH A SCALE IS SHOWN IN THE SETTLEMENT DATED 12-1-1994. THEY, HOWEVER, CONTEND THAT THIS SETTLEMENT HAVING BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER THEIR PROMOTION IN 1993 IS NOT BINDING ON THEM. IT MUST ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT AT ONE STAGE THEY HAD ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE UNION MAY, DISREGARDING THEIR INTEREST ARRIVE AT SETTLEMENT WHICH WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEM. BUT THAT CONTENTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN UP AND NOT PRESSED IN THE WRIT PETITION. 5. IT MUST ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT AT ONE STAGE THEY HAD ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE UNION MAY, DISREGARDING THEIR INTEREST ARRIVE AT SETTLEMENT WHICH WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEM. BUT THAT CONTENTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN UP AND NOT PRESSED IN THE WRIT PETITION. 5. AS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE WRIT PETITION THE SETTLEMENT DATED 12-1-1994 WAS ARRIVED AT, THE SETTLEMENT WOULD BE BINDING ON THE RESPONDENTS. THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOW ONLY ENTITLED TO THE SCALE STARTING AT RS 625 AS THAT WAS THE NEXT PROMOTIONAL SCALE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT A SETTLEMENT, ADMITTEDLY ARRIVED AT IN THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS, IS BINDING ON ALL. THIS IS CLEAR FROM SECTION 18 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SO HELD BY THIS COURT IN THE CASES OF SIRSILK LTD. V. GOVT. OF A.PI, K.C.P. LTD. V. PRESIDING OFFICER2 AND NATIONAL ENGG. INDUSTRIES LTD. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN3. 6. UNFORTUNATELY, THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT REFERRED TO THE SETTLEMENT OR DEALT WITH IT AT ALL. IN VIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT, THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS AS CLAIMED BY THEM. THE HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY ERRED IN GRANTING THEM A SCALE OF RS 710. 7. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE WRIT PETITION WILL STAND DISMISSED. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.