JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings in Adjudication Case No. 186 of 1990 pending before respondent no. 1 and the reference order dated 28.8.1990 (Annexure I). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 not to proceed further in Adjudication Case No. 186 of 1990 pending before it in pursuance of the reference order dated 28.8.1990. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner is a Company registered under Indian Companies Act and carries on business of manufacture and sale of pulps and papers. Its factory is situate at Lal Kuan District Nainital. A dispute has arisen between the workmen and the factory management pertaining to certain demands. A demand charter was submitted by workers through union leaders dated 24.1.1990 and under Demand No. 2(B) of the charter of demand conveyance allowance @ 10% of the total salary was claimed by the workers. The demands raised by the workers was not acceptable to the employer-factory management, which resulted into violent industrial unrest etc. and the manufacturing activities were adversely affected and the working was paralyzed. Consequently, the management had declared lock out w.e.f. 1.6.1990, which continued upto August 1990. The matter was thoroughly examined by the officials of the Labour Department. Ultimately a registered settlement was arrived at on 4.8.1990 which was duly signed by the employer, union representatives and the officials of Labour Department and it was agreed that every worker shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 35/- per month as conveyance allowance. The settlement was registered on 25.8.1990 in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) and complete formality and compliance of Section 6-B of the Act was made. 3. In the meantime, the State Government made a reference under Section 4-K of the Act by Government Order dated 28.8.1990 for adjudication to Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. In the meantime, the State Government made a reference under Section 4-K of the Act by Government Order dated 28.8.1990 for adjudication to Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. The industrial disputes reads as under : “Whether non-payment of conveyance allowance to all the technicians and workers w.e.f. 10.1.1990 by the employers is illegal and improper? If so, to what benefit/compensation are the workers entitled to get with its details?” 4. According to the petitioner, the settlement is binding instrument, and contract of service between employees and employer. It has not been modified, rescinded or cancelled. The same is still in force. The benefit of settlement is being given to the workers and the management is fairly implementing the settlement. Hence the State Government had no jurisdiction to make a reference for a dispute, which was no longer in existence. In view of the settlement, which is in operation between the parties, there exists no dispute or difference to constitute an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2-L of the Act and since no industrial dispute existed between the parties, therefore, there was no occasion for the State Government to exercise its powers under Section 4-K of the Act and to make a reference to the Labour Court. 5. The Labour Court issued summon on 24.9.1990 to both the parties fixing 11.10.1990 for filing their reply. 6. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the entire proceeding in Adjudication Case No. 186 of 1990 pending before the respondent no. 1 as well as the reference order dated 28.8.1990 issued by the Government (Annexure No. 1). 7. Counter Affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 3. The averments made in the writ petition were denied and it was stated that the petitioner may contest the dispute before the Labour Court. 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit on 9.8.2007. It was stated in the rejoinder affidavit that there are two types of employees working in the petitioner company – one belongs to the workers represented by Century Pulp and Paper Workers Union, which deals with physical and manual work and the other category belongs mainly to clerical staff and is represented by staff association. According to the petitioner, some facilities are given to the workers union, which is not available to staff association because the nature of work performed by the two categories of workers is quite different. According to the petitioner, some facilities are given to the workers union, which is not available to staff association because the nature of work performed by the two categories of workers is quite different. 9. It was further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the workers were getting conveyance allowance @ Rs. 25/- per month but the dispute was raised with regard to enhance the conveyance allowance. Ultimately, by the settlement arrived at between the parties in accordance with Section 4-F of the Act read with Rule 5-1 of the Rules framed under the Act, on 4.8.1990, the conveyance allowance was enhanced to Rs. 35/- from Rs. 25/- per month. Objections were invited by the Prescribed Authority against the settlement and after adopting proper procedure, the same was registered. In the light of the registered settlement between the parties, the reference order made by the State Government has become redundant and non-existing. It has been specifically stated that the settlement has been implemented and has been accepted by the workers union without any grievance, therefore, no dispute was left for adjudication by the Labour Court. It has been also stated that after the expiry of settlement dated 04.08.1990, another settlement had taken place on 13.6.1991 between the petitioner company and respondent no. 3, which also included the matter of conveyance allowance, and it was provided that the terms and conditions as agreed between parties in settlement dated 4.8.1990 shall continue. Thereafter third settlement took place, which was duly registered on 29.07.1993, and the conveyance allowance was to continue as settled earlier. Again fourth settlement took place on 11.02.1997 thereby conveyance allowance was raised from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 50/- per month and subsequently, through settlement dated 16.07.2003, the conveyance was raised from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 800/- per month. It was further stated that conveyance allowance of the staff association had been raised from time to time Rs. 50/- per month and at present, the conveyance allowance has been settled at Rs. 800/- per month. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties along with its annexures. 11. 50/- per month and at present, the conveyance allowance has been settled at Rs. 800/- per month. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties along with its annexures. 11. At the outset it may be mentioned that the industrial dispute referred by the Government for adjudication to the Labour Court was regarding the grant of conveyance allowance to the technician and workers with effect from 10.01.1990. From a perusal of the entire material on record, it comes out that after the reference was made to the Labour Court, as many as six Settlements had taken place between the workers and the employers including the matter of conveyance allowance. All the settlements are in full operation and are being implemented fairly between the parties. The workers are undisputedly getting the conveyance allowance at different rates from different dates as per settlements arrived at and registered as per provisions of the Act. 12. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that after execution of as many as six settlements arrived at between the parties, no dispute regarding grant of conveyance allowance is left for adjudication. The settlements are legally binding on the parties, therefore, in view of the Apex Court verdict in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 371 = AIR, 2000 Supreme Court, Page 469], it is fit case in which Labour Court should not proceed further in the matter and the Government should refrain from publishing such an award because no dispute remains to be revolved by it. 13. The Apex Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) has referred to the case of Sirsilk Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1964 Supreme Court, Page 160] wherein it was observed inter alia in paragraph no. 24, as under : “It will be thus seen that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. 24, as under : “It will be thus seen that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal (sic dispute) which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended the appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference. A settlement of dispute between the parties themselves is to be preferred, where it could be arrived at, to industrial adjudication, as the settlement is like to lead to more lasting peace than an award. Settlement is arrived at by the free will of the parties and is a pointer to there being goodwill between them.” 14. It was further observed that when there is a dispute that the settlement is not bona fide in nature or that it has been arrived at on account of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts or even corruption and other inducements it could be the subject-matter of yet another industrial dispute which an appropriate Government may refer for adjudication after examining the allegations as there is an underlying assumption that the settlement reached with the help of the Concilliation Officer must be fair and reasonable. A settlement which is sought to be impugned has to be scanned and scrutinized.” 15. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Jagpal Singh Tyagi [2007 (115) FLR, 280 (Supreme Court) has made a reference to the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) and has held in paragraph no. 3 as under : “We find that the approach of both the Labour Court and the High Court is clearly on wrong premises. If there was a dispute on the question as to whether the settlement was bona fide or was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts, the same can be the subject-matter of another industrial dispute. 3 as under : “We find that the approach of both the Labour Court and the High Court is clearly on wrong premises. If there was a dispute on the question as to whether the settlement was bona fide or was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts, the same can be the subject-matter of another industrial dispute. To substantiate the averments that such settlement could not have been arrived at, nothing was brought on record by the respondent-employee to show that there was any pressure exercised or that he was subjected to undue influence. There is also no material to show that the settlement was intended to frustrate the order passed by the High Court. At no point of time, the respondent-employee raised any dispute as regards the fairness of the settlement. Having obtained the benefit, it was not open to him to turn down without justifiable reasons to contend that the settlement was not fair.” 16. From a perusal of the record, it is obvious that since the year 1990, as many as six settlements had already taken place between the parties from time to time with regard to conveyance allowance thereby conveyance allowance has already been enhanced time and again and the settlements are very much in operation. It is thus clear that the employees have obtained the benefits of these settlements, therefore, in view of the Apex Court verdict in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra), it is not open to the respondent no. 3 – Workers Union to turn down without justification to contend that the settlement was not fair. In the counter affidavit, the respondent no. 3 has nowhere stated that the benefits of the settlement arrived at between the parties are not being given and that they are not getting the conveyance allowance as settled between the parties. The controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the Apex Court Judgment in the aforesaid case. 17. For the reasons and discussion above, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari in its favour. 18. The writ petition is allowed. 17. For the reasons and discussion above, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari in its favour. 18. The writ petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Adjudication Case No. 186 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Haldwani, Nainital, arising out of Uttar Pradesh Shasan Reference Order dated 28.8.1990 (Annexure 1) are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 19. Interim order dated 11.11.1991 stands vacated.