ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal at the instance of the respondent is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single judge in C. O. No. 1249 (W) of 1996. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent was an employee under the appellant and he worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12 months preceding his termination. On 10. 4. 92 the writ petitioner was appraised that his service was no more required and as such he was terminated with immediate effect. Under the letter dated 11. 4. 92 the service of the writ petitioner was terminated with effect from 13. 4. 92 and account payee cheque was enclosed with the said letter. Although notice of termination was issued on 11. 4. 92 the same was posted on 12. 4. 92. There was paper publication in two daily newspapers The Telegraph' and The ajkal' on 27. 4. 92 and therefrom it appeared that termination was effected from 13. 4. 92. The Tribunal held that subsequently there was tripartite agreement held on 9. 7. 92 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner in respect of the dispute between the employer and the site workmen represented by All India E. P. I. Sites Employees' Union over the termination of the employment of the site workmen arising out of the closure of the project work. On the basis of such agreement some of the workers were retained in the Company and 32 out of 33 temporary workmen had taken terminal benefits. The writ petitioner did not take any benefit. The Tribunal was of the view that the said settlement was legal and binding on the parties and the order of reference was incompetent and without jurisdiction and the management was justified in terminating the service of the writ petitioner. ( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal the writ petitioner filed the writ petition and learned Single Judge by the impugned order set aside the award and directed the respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages immediately. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the respondent in the writ petition preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned Lawyer for the appellant Sri arunava Ghosh that reinstatement of writ petitioner was not possible in view of the fact that the project was closed. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the respondent in the writ petition preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned Lawyer for the appellant Sri arunava Ghosh that reinstatement of writ petitioner was not possible in view of the fact that the project was closed. As project was closed the question of application of the provision of Section 25f of the Industrial disputes Act does not arise and the order of termination of the writ petitioner is valid. ( 6 ) SRI Ghosh further contended that there was a tripartite settlement entered into by the Union representing all the 33 workmen including the writ petitioner being member of the said Union. The said agreement is binding upon the writ petitioner. In the tripartite agreement it was decided that the employees who had completed 7 years of service or more under the company and who could not submit applications for consideration of appointment of regular roles of the company as per its circular dated 11. 4. 92 would be allowed to submit the same within 3 weeks from 9. 7. 92 for consideration of the company. The employees who were willing to accept the terminal benefits as per the rules of the company might do so and their names would be empanelled by the company for future employment in the company as per the existing Rules. 32 workmen out of 33 workmen accepted the terms and got the terminal benefits. Only the writ petitioner did not accept the same. The Tribunal was not asked to declare the said tripartite settlement dated 9. 7. 92 winch was reached in course of a conciliation proceeding as a void one and instead the parties proceeded on the basis of said tripartite settlement as the said settlement is valid one and has got binding effects. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant placed his reliance upon the decisions reported in 2000 (1) SCC 371 , 2006 (2) SCC 711 , 1997 (10)SCC 727 , 1997 (1) SCC 9 and 1996 (1) SCC 773 . ( 8 ) IT was contended by Mr. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant placed his reliance upon the decisions reported in 2000 (1) SCC 371 , 2006 (2) SCC 711 , 1997 (10)SCC 727 , 1997 (1) SCC 9 and 1996 (1) SCC 773 . ( 8 ) IT was contended by Mr. A. Debnath learned Lawyer for the respondent that the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial disputes Act were not complied with and the termination of the writ petitioner is illegal and the order of reinstatement passed by the learned single Judge is quite valid. The tripartite agreement relied by the appellant is not binding upon the writ petitioner and the same is not valid settlement as contemplated in Section 2p of the Act read with Rule 68 of the West bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Sri Debnath placed his reliance upon the ruling reported in 2005 (2) CLJ at page 19,1984 Supplementary supreme Court Cases at page 428 (Paras 2 and 6),1981 (3) Supreme court Cases at page 225 (Paras 16, 18, 5, 9 and 10), AIR 1953 Supreme court at page 252 and AIR 1954 Supreme Court at page 403. ( 9 ) IT is undisputed that the writ petitioner/respondent was employed under the appellant as a temporary employee posted at the site of the company at Durgapur. It is further undisputed that the service of the writ petitioner along with his 32 colleagues was terminated. It is further undisputed that the writ petitioner was working in Plant Water Supply facilities Project. It is further admitted that service of the writ petitioner was terminated as the major work of the project was completed and his service was no longer required with effect from 13. 4. 92. It is further undisputed that there is a conciliation proceeding over the termination of employment of the site workmen. According to the appellant, there was tripartite settlement on 9. 7. 92 in respect of dispute between the appellant at the DSP site, Durgapur and the site workmen represented by All India epi State Employees Union, over the termination of the employment of the site workman arising out of the closer of the project work and the said agreement or settlement is embodied in Annexure-'m' of the writ petition. The writ petitioner has not challenged the genuineness of the tripartite agreement but he has challenged the legality and validity of the said agreement. The writ petitioner has not challenged the genuineness of the tripartite agreement but he has challenged the legality and validity of the said agreement. ( 10 ) THE said agreement shows that following the minutes of the joint conference held on 30. 10. 91 at the office of the Deputy Labour commissioner, Durgapur and over the issue of recognition and other allied matter the party entered into an understanding through a minutes of meeting held at CCPP, EPI, Durgapur on 18. 12. 91 and 19. 12. 91. As per above minutes the management took certain steps i. e. , started offering alternative employment, approached RTU in connection with recognition of the Union etc. to employment through agreed points. However, industrial unrest started when the workmen reportedly refused to accept the offer of alternative employment at other sites of the company. The Union also insisted on its being accorded immediate recognition as also removal of certain anomalies and the conditions of service including wages etc. The union ultimately resorted to a strike on 4. 3. 92, 5. 3. 92 and again on 27. 3. 92 which continued up to 5. 5. 92. Management in the meantime declared closer of the Plant and Water Supply Facilities Project at DSP, Durgapur with effect from 9. 4. 92. Consequently, all the regular employees including the Project In-charge were transferred to other site of the company and the services of temporary employees were dispensed with. All India E and I sites Employees' Union raised a dispute over the termination of services of the workman. The dispute was taken up for investigation and settlement. Several joint and separate meetings were held on different dates at different levels of conciliation machinery. While assuring the management of maintenance of discipline, industrial peace and good behaviour on the part of the workman, the Union requested the management to start the project. After protracted discussions it was agreed to by and between the parties as follows: - 1. That the workman will withdraw all agitational activities in the sites of work at Durgapur including guest house of the company and resort normally with immediate effect. 2. After protracted discussions it was agreed to by and between the parties as follows: - 1. That the workman will withdraw all agitational activities in the sites of work at Durgapur including guest house of the company and resort normally with immediate effect. 2. That on the above assurance of the Union, the management will re-start the work of above-mentioned project for which purpose all necessary steps will be taken by them including the posting of a site in-charge which process is accepted to be completed within two weeks from 9. 7. 92. 3. That with effect from the commencement of the work, the management will engage four employees, 3 watchmen and 1 Clerk-cum-Cleaner who have completed seven years of service under the company. 4. That three employees (2 watchmen and 1 Supervisor) who have been completed 7 years of service under the company will accept the terminal benefits as per Rules of the company and thereunder will proceed to the places where they will be reappointed. 5. That the management will also engage Sri G. Nag as a watchman on compassionate ground on daily rate basis as before with effect from the date of commencement of the work. 6. That the employees who have completed seven years of service or more under the company and who could not submit applications for consideration of appointment on regular Rolls of the company as per its circular dated 11th April, 1992, will be allowed to submit the same within three weeks from 9. 7. 92 for consideration of the company. 7. That the employees who are willing to accept the terminal benefits as per the Rules of the Company, may do so and their names will be empanelled by the company for future employment in the company as per the existing rules. 8. That the parties will review the entire matter induding the positions and progress of the work, industrial resolutions situations could not of the workmen, prospect of employment etc. on the 12th August, 1992, in the presence of the conciliation officer. ( 11 ) AS already observed the validity and legality of the said tripartite agreement has been challenged by the writ petitioner. It has been contended that he is not a signatory to the said tripartite agreement. on the 12th August, 1992, in the presence of the conciliation officer. ( 11 ) AS already observed the validity and legality of the said tripartite agreement has been challenged by the writ petitioner. It has been contended that he is not a signatory to the said tripartite agreement. The said agreement is not drawn up in conformity with the Rules 68 of the west Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 and the same does not fall within the definition of Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently the same is not valid and binding upon him. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has contended that the said tripartite agreement dated 9. 7. 92 was reached in course of conciliation proceeding and the same is valid one and the same falls squarely within the definition of settlement as provided in Section 2 (p) of the Industrial disputes Act and the parties preceded on the basis of said settlement and the said settlement is valid one and has got a building effect. The said settlement was raised between the employer and site workmen represented by All India EPI Sites Employees' Union. ( 13 ) IT will be relevant to quote Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 which provides that settlement means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and the workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer. ( 14 ) RULE 68 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 governing the memorandum of settlement is reproduced below: - 1. A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise shall be in Form 'j'. 2. ( 14 ) RULE 68 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 governing the memorandum of settlement is reproduced below: - 1. A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise shall be in Form 'j'. 2. The settlement shall be signed - (a) in the case of the employer: (i) by the employer himself or by his authorised agent or where the employer is an incorporated company or other body corporate, by the agent, manager or any other principal officer of the company or other corporate body, or (ii) by an officer referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 36, or where the employer is not a member of any association of employer, by an officer or other employer referred to in Clause (c) of the said sub-section authorised in the manner laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 78a; (b) in the case of the workmen- (i) by the workmen himself, or (ii) by the President or Secretary of a trade union or federation of trade unions referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, or where the workman is not a member of any trade union, by an officer or other workmen referred to in Clause (c)of the said sub-section authorised in the manner laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 78a. 3. Where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and his workmen/workman otherwise than in course of conciliation proceeding before a Board or a Conciliation Officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Assistant secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department and the Conciliation Officer concerned, either by registered post with acknowledgement due or by personal service upon receipt, during the hours respectively fixed for the purpose by the officer concerned. ( 15 ) FROM the said settlement which is (Annexure-'m') it appears that the settlement was signed in case of the employer by Shri D. S. Likhari, general Manager, Head Office of the appellant/company, Shri T. M. Curashi manager (P and A) Head Office, Shri I. A. Khan Manager (P and A), Calcutta. ( 15 ) FROM the said settlement which is (Annexure-'m') it appears that the settlement was signed in case of the employer by Shri D. S. Likhari, general Manager, Head Office of the appellant/company, Shri T. M. Curashi manager (P and A) Head Office, Shri I. A. Khan Manager (P and A), Calcutta. On behalf of the workmen the same was signed by Shri A. Dukshi, Shri mrinal Banerjee, Shri H. K. Saxena, Shri S. K. Roy, Shri Debatosh chakraborty, Shri Debanjan Chakraborty who appeared on behalf of All india EPI Sites Employees' Union. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner is a member of the said trade Union. Thus, the settlement was duly signed by the persons contemplated in sub-rule 2 (a) and 2 (b) of Rule 68. Subrule 1 of Rule 68 contemplates that settlement arrived in course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise shall be in form (j ). Form J is also reproduced below for the shake of brevity: -FORM 'j' form for Memorandum of Settlement 1. Names and addresses of parties - (a) The name and address of the establishment or undertaking involved; (b) The name and address of the workman involved, if the dispute, or difference is connected with, or has arisen out of, his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service and no other workman nor any Union of workmen is a party to the dispute/in any other case, the name and address of the Union, if any, representing the workmen in question. 2. Name of the person/persons representing the employer (s); 3. Name of the person/persons representing the workman/workmen; 4. Short recital of the case; 5. Terms of settlement; signature of the parties witness: (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signature of the Conciliation Officer/board or Conciliation. In cases of settlement effected by Conciliation Officer/board of conciliation note.-Delete where not applicable. Copy to - (1) Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal Labour department. (2) Conciliation Officer. (3) Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signature of the Conciliation Officer/board or Conciliation. In cases of settlement effected by Conciliation Officer/board of conciliation note.-Delete where not applicable. Copy to - (1) Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal Labour department. (2) Conciliation Officer. (3) Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. ( 16 ) IT is of course true that tripartite agreement does not show that the was embodied in prescribed form 'j' of Memorandum of Settlement as per Rule 68. But on close scrutiny of the entire settlement will show that it was in substantial compliance with the prescribed form 'j' for memorandum of Settlement. ( 17 ) LEARNED Single Judge in the impugned judgment relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court at page 1851 and held that the said agreement was not valid and binding upon the writ petitioner and the same did not follow mandatory form prescribed in the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. ( 18 ) IN the case relied by the learned Single Judge reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court at page 1851 it was held that in the light of definition of 'settlement' in Section 2 (p) and the provisions of Section 18 (1) it is clear that Section 18 (1) does not vest in the management and the Union unfettered freedom to settle the dispute as they please and clothe it with a binding effect on all workmen or even on all member workmen of the union. The settlement has to be in compliance with the statutory provisions. Hence, where there is non-compliance with Rule 58 (4) of the Industrial disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 the settlement is invalid. ( 19 ) SUB-RULE 4 of Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 provides that where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and the workmen otherwise than in course of conciliation proceedings before a Board or a conciliation officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Central Government, the Chief Labour commissioner (Central) New Delhi and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) concerned. The apex Court was not considering the provision of Rule 68 of the West Bengal industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. The apex Court was not considering the provision of Rule 68 of the West Bengal industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. The Apex Court was also not considering whether the settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceeding was invalid as the same was not in form 'j' of the West Bengal Industrial disputes Rules, 1958. In the case before the Apex Court no question, was raised whether the settlement was invalid as the same was not in form 'ii' as required under sub-rule 1 of Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,1957. ( 20 ) WE have already held that in recording such tripartite agreement there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 68 of the west Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. It is true that the agreement as provided in Annexure-'m' does not show that the same is in form 'j' as contemplated in Rule 68 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. But, substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule 68 and drawing up of the settlement substantially in conformity with the form 'j' do not invalidate the tripartite settlement. It is settled law that rules of procedure are intended to be handmade to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. Even if it assumed that the tripartite agreement being not in prescribed form 'j' meant for drawing up memorandum of settlement which is infraction of Rule 68 (1)of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules still then for such infraction of rules and procedure the entire tripartite agreement cannot be brushed aside as invalid one. ( 21 ) IN view of provision of Section 18 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act a settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceeding under the Act shall be binding on all the parties to the industrial dispute including employer, his heirs, successors or assignees and workmen all persons who were employed in establishment or part of tile establishment to which the dispute relates on the date of dispute and all persons who subsequently became employed in that establishment or part. So, obviously the said tripartite agreement is binding upon the writ petitioner. So, obviously the said tripartite agreement is binding upon the writ petitioner. ( 22 ) IT is admitted that out of dismissed 33 workmen 32 workmen have accepted the termination and also accepted the tripartite agreement and they have raised no objection in accepting terminal benefits given to them on such retrenchment but the writ petitioner only out of 33 has raised objection to such acceptance of terminal benefits. In view of the said agreement he is not competent to do so. He cannot raise any dispute regarding his termination and he cannot claim reinstatement on cancellation of the said order of his termination. It will not be off the point to refer to the decision reported in 2000 (1) Supreme Court Cases at page 371 where it has been held a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority Union will be binding, on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. When a settlement is arrived at during the conciliation proceedings it is binding on the members of the workers' Union as laid down by Section 18 (3) (d) of the Act. It would ipso facto bind all the existing workmen who are all parties to the industrial dispute and who may not be members of Unions that are signatories to such settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Act. The Act is based on the principle of collective bargaining for resolving industrial disputes and for maintaining industrial peace. ( 23 ) IT appears that the management declared the closer of the Plant of Water Supply Facility Project at DSP, Durgapur with effect from 9. 4. 92 and consequently the services of temporary employees including the writ petitioner and other 32 colleagues of him were dispensed with. Then on request of the Union for re-starting the project certain terms were laid down in the tripartite agreement. So, the project virtually came to an end. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the termination for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (f)which are as follows: - 25f. Then on request of the Union for re-starting the project certain terms were laid down in the tripartite agreement. So, the project virtually came to an end. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the termination for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (f)which are as follows: - 25f. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until: (a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by Notification in the Official Gazette]. As the project was closed and the service of temporary workmen including the writ petitioners along with others were dispensed with so the provisions of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not come to play. ( 24 ) IN this regard reference may be made to the case reported in 1997 (10) Supreme Court Cases at page 727 where services of employees of Haryana Seeds Development (Corporation Limited including salesman were dispensed with consequent to closer of a number of units including sale counters due to heavy floods and it was held that Section 25 (f) of the act was not attracted and the rigour imposed thereunder stood excluded. ( 25 ) IN the case reported in 1996 (1) Supreme Court Cases at page773 where daily wagers were engaged by the State Government on muster-roll basis in Central Scheme and paid out of funds provided by the Central-Government and service of such daily-wagers were terminated on closer of the scheme and High Court gave direction to regularise them or to continue them to other place, the Apex Court held that when the project was completed and closed due to non-availability of funds the employees had to go along with the closed project. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue them to other places. No vested right was created in temporary employment. ( 26 ) IN the case reported in 2006 (2) Supreme Court Cases at page 711 it was held by the Apex Court that for non-compliance of Section 25 (f)ordinarily workmen could be directed to be reinstated with or without back wages but when a project or scheme or an office itself was abolished relief of reinstatement was not granted. ( 27 ) CONSEQUENTLY, in the cases relied by the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Debnath reported in 1984 Supplementary Supreme court Cases at page 428, 1981 (3) Supreme Court Cases at page 225 the project or any unit of the industry was not closed and so the facts and circumstances of this case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the Apex Court and the decision of the Apex Court in the said cases does not come to an aid of Mr. Debnath. ( 28 ) IN the case reported in 2005 (2) CLJ at page 19 it has been held that as authority of a writ Court is recognised to consider the validity of a decision by a learned Tribunal, the writ Court is expected to exercise all its power is contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of such power, there is no limitation that any additional point of law either in support to impugned decision or against it, cannot be considered by a writ Court. The Constitution has recognised a very wide power of the writ court in the interest of justice. ( 29 ) IN the case reported in AIR 1953 Supreme Court at page 252 relied by Mr. Debnath it was held that it is always desirable, when relief under Article 226 is sought on allegations of infringement of fundamental rights, that the Court should satisfy itself that such allegations are well founded before proceeding further with the matter. ( 30 ) IN the case reported in AIR 1954 SC at page 403 relied by mr. Debnath it was held that it is always desirable, when relief under Article 226 is sought on allegations of infringement of fundamental rights, that the Court should satisfy itself that such allegations are well founded before proceeding further with the matter. ( 30 ) IN the case reported in AIR 1954 SC at page 403 relied by mr. Debnath it was held that contention that because a remedy under the impugned Act is available to the assessee, he is disentitled to relief under Article 226 stands negatived by the decision in AIR 1953 sc 252 in the State of Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Ltd. The principle that a Court will not issue a prerogative writ when an adequate alternative remedy was available does not apply where a party has come to the Court with an allegation that his fundamental right had been infringed and sought relief under Article 226. ( 31 ) IN view of the above discussions we hold that the termination of writ petitioner/respondent is not illegal and the same is not in violation of the provisions of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal rightly held that the question of termination was settled by valid settlement which was legal and binding on the parties and the order of reference was incompetent and without jurisdiction and the management was justified in terminating the service of the petitioner. ( 32 ) IN the result, the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside and the appeal succeeds. ( 33 ) THE appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge are hereby set aside. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs.