Order The present writ petition challenges the order dated 10th June, 2002, passed by the General Manager (I.R. Section), Department of Personnel, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad (respondent no. 3 herein), whereby and whereunder, he has refused to give the Fitment to the petitioner in Grade-B (Excavation Cadre). The petitioner has claimed the same with effect from 18.6.1992 with consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a permanent employee of respondent-M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and under the orders of the respondents, he underwent training of Pay Loader Mechanic at Mudidih Pay Loader Workshop during the period from 1.12.1980 to 17.7.1982 and by office order dated 19.7.1982 he was declared 'pass' as Pay Loader Mechanic and he, accordingly, joined the post of Pay Loader Mechanic. His further case is that he was not given the benefit of such post, which led to an industrial dispute and the same was finally referred for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad, on 15.12.1986. During pendency of the reference before the learned Tribunal, a settlement was entered into on 25.5.1995 to place the petitioner in Excavation Grade-D notionally with effect from 23.12.1983, in Excavation Grade-C notionally with effect from 31.7.1987 and in Excavation Grades notionally with effect from 18.6.1992. It was also agreed that the copy of the settlement shall be filed before the learned Tribunal and request was to be made to give the award in terms of the settlement. 3. The learned Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, vide its order dated 19th March, 1996 held that it was a case of 'no dispute' existing between the petitioner and the management and, accordingly, passed 'no dispute award' in the reference. Thereafter, the petitioner represented from time to time to enforce the settlement. The petitioner was constrained to file W.P. (S) No. 1446 of 2001 before the Hon 'ble High Court of Jharkhand. The same was disposed of with a direction to the General Manager of the respondent-B.C.C.L. to dispose of the representation by speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioner, accordingly, gave a detailed representation to implement the settlement and also stated that it had withdrawn the dispute from the Central Government Industrial/ Tribunal. Thereafter, the General Manager (IR) vide its order dated 10.6.2002 held as under:- "xxx xxx xxx The Tribunal passed no dispute award. The petitioner, accordingly, gave a detailed representation to implement the settlement and also stated that it had withdrawn the dispute from the Central Government Industrial/ Tribunal. Thereafter, the General Manager (IR) vide its order dated 10.6.2002 held as under:- "xxx xxx xxx The Tribunal passed no dispute award. No settlement as alleged by the workman was filed between the parties and as such the claim of Shri Ganpat Tiwary as per settlement is not correct. He is at present working in Cat.-VI as Motor Mechanic and as such his claim for upgrade-ation in Grade-D (Excavation Cadre) is also not maintainable as there is no justifiable reason as he is in E&M cadre and claiming in Excavation Cadre, have no justifiable cause and. reason." 4. Counsel for the respondents has mainly relied upon the impugned order, passed by the General Manager dated 10.6.2002 and has reiterated its argument, which is confined to the fact that the petitioner did not file the settlement dated 16.5.1995. However, in the counter affidavit at para 4 it admits the settlement and its terms thereto. 5. I have considered the arguments of both the sides and the contention raised by the Management appears to be erroneous and not maintainable. As per Clause (iii) of the terms of settlement, it nowhere specifies that the petitioner alone had agreed to file the settlement before the Industrial Tribunal. Clause (iii) of the settlement is quoted as under:- xxx xxx xxx (iii) That it was also agreed that 7 copies of this settlement shall be filed before the Hon 'ble Tribunal and the Hon 'ble Tribunal may be requested to give an Award in terms of settlement. xxx xxx xxx 6. On a bare reading of the aforesaid term, it will be obvious that even the Management could have filed the same. The award has not been adjudicated on merits and it clearly specifies that the workman was not interested to pursue the matter before the learned Tribunal and there was no dispute existing between him and the Management and in the circumstances a "no dispute award" was passed in the reference. Even the settlement was addressed to the Presiding Officer. This is indicative of the fact that in view of the settlement, the reference was not pressed nor pursued nor adjudicated. The respondent-B.C.C.L. should honour its settlement, more so when the same has never been disputed nor denied. Even the settlement was addressed to the Presiding Officer. This is indicative of the fact that in view of the settlement, the reference was not pressed nor pursued nor adjudicated. The respondent-B.C.C.L. should honour its settlement, more so when the same has never been disputed nor denied. Even otherwise estoppel by conduct will apply against the respondents. 7. In the aforesaid background, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.6.2002, passed by the General Manager (I.R.), Department of Personnel, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, is quashed and the respondents are directed to implement the settlement dated 16.5.1995. However, there will be no order as to cost.