Judgment A.K. Patnaik, C. J. ( 1. ) This is an appeal filed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 13.2.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.883/2004. ( 2. ) The facts relevant for disposing of this appeal briefly are that the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Labour Department, Bhopal by order dated 22.3.1997 under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act) referred 29 subjects of dispute between the appellant and its employees to the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench for arbitration which was registered as Reference Case No. 3/99 MPIR. The parties to the industrial disputes fifed their respective statements of claim and thereafter evidence was adduced by the parties and the Industrial Court disposed of the reference by order dated 12,3.2004. The first subject of dispute in the reference case was whether the Temporary Substitute Pool (TSP) employees working in the Undertaking of the appellant performed the work of permanent nature and is it proper to classify them as TSP employees ? The Industrial Court held that TSP employees who were not working on the vacant posts would not be eligible to be categorised as regular employees as they work in the capacity of the shift employees in the absence of regular employees. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of its order dated 12.3.2004, the Industrial Court however found that the present strength of the TSP employees under the appellant was 16 to 18 and accordingly directed that the appellant should regularise these 16 to 18 employees as per clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 Ex.D-2 as the settlement was in force. ( 3. ) The order dated 12.3.2004 of the Industrial Court was challenged by respondent No.2 and 3 in W.P. No.883/2004 under Clause 226 of the Constitution before this Court and by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge while rejecting all the contentions raised by the respondents No.2 and 3 in the writ petition directed the appellant to regularise the services of TSP employees numbering 16 to 18 in accordance with clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 after observing that the appellant had not assailed the direction in the order of the Industrial Court for regularising these TSP employees before the High Court. Aggrieved by this direction of the learned Single Judge to the appellant to regularise the services of 16 to 18 TSP employees in accordance with clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999, the appellant has filed this appeal. ( 4. ) At the hearing Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Mr. Sanjay Veriria, Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that respondent No.2 has ceased to be the representative Union of the employees of the appellant since May, 19*98 and therefore could not file the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 12.3.2004 in this Court and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.883/2004 in so far as it directs the appellant to regularise the services of 16 to 18 employees in accordance with clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 was liable to be set aside. They referred to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act which provides that the employees of an undertaking shall be represented in the order of reference by the (i) Representative Union; (ii) Registered Union and (iii) Government Labour Officer. ( 5. ) The respondent No>3 who is President of the respondent No.2 Union, on the other hand, submitted that it is the respondent no.2 Union which had raised the industrial dispute regarding the service conditions of the employees working in the undertaking of the appellant but when conciliation failed the State Government made the reference No.3/99 to the Industrial Court and therefore the respondent No.2 bad the locus standi to challenge the order of the Industrial Court in a writ petition before this Court if the order of the Industrial Court did not protect the interests of the employees. ( 6. ) We find full force in the submission made on behalf of the respondent no.2. The respondent No.2 Union may not be the representative or the majority Union but it was a Union of some of the employees of the undertaking of the appelant. In Hardeosihgh and another vs. Central Government Industrial Tribumil- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur and others, 1973 MPLJ Vol. 18 1040, Ratna. The respondent No.2 Union may not be the representative or the majority Union but it was a Union of some of the employees of the undertaking of the appelant. In Hardeosihgh and another vs. Central Government Industrial Tribumil- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur and others, 1973 MPLJ Vol. 18 1040, Ratna. J has rightly held that employees who were not the members of the representative or majority Union can challenge a settlement or an award of the Industrial Tribunal through the Union of which they are members by filing petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 7. ) Mr. Rajendra Tiwari and Mr. Sanjay Verma next submitted that it was not necessary for the appellant to challenge the direction in the order of the Industrial Court to regularise the services of 16 to 18 TSP employees because this direction of the Industrial Court was beyond the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and was a nullity. They submitted that in a reference made by the State Government under Section 51 of the Act, the Industrial Court can only decide the disputes referred to it and since the question of regularisation of TSP employees in accordance with the clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 was not a subject of dispute referred to the Industrial Court, the direction of the Industrial Court in this regard was wholly without jurisdiction and the appellant was not required to challenge the same. ( 8. ) In support of their contention, Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Verma cited the decision of the Supreme Count in The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs The Workmen and others, AIR 1967 SC 469 for the proposition that the Tribunal deciding a dispute referred under Section 10. of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot enlarge the scope its jurisdiction. They also cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs President, Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, 1970 M.P.L.J. 946 wherein it has been held that the Arbitrator constituted under the Act cannot enlarge the scope of reference made to it for arbitration and the Industrial Court has to confine itself to the subject matter of the dispute and other incidental matters. They also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in S.S. Dwarka Prasad Agrawal (D)by LRs. They also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in S.S. Dwarka Prasad Agrawal (D)by LRs. and another vs B.D. Agrawal and others, 2003 SAR (Civil) 583 in which the Supreme Court has held that an order passed without jurisdiction by a Court is a nullity. They relied on Mahendra L. Jain and others vs Indore Development Authority and others, AIR. 2005 SC 1252 in which the Supreme Court having found that no plea had been raised by the appellant as to permanency as per the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 nor such issue was referred to the Labour Court has held that it was improper for the Labour court to grant relief of regularisation of the appellant on the basis of the 1961 Act; They also relied on Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and others.vs Ravinder Nath and others, (2008) 2 SCC 350 in which the Supreme Court has held that once an original decree passed by a Civil Court in respect of the industrial dispute itself has been held to be without jurisdiction and hit by the doctrine of coram non judice, there was no question of upholding the same merely on the ground that the objection to jurisdiction was not taken on initial or first appellate stage or second appellate stage. They placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. and others vs. Girish Chandra Sarma, (2007) 7 SCC 206 for the proposition that a plea abandoned before the Single Judge in a High Court could be raised before the Division Bench in writ appeal because the writ appeal is in continuance of the original order passed by the Single Judge in writ jurisdiction. ( 9. ) We are of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellant that the direction of the Industrial Court in the order dated 12.3.2004 to the appellant to regularise the 16 to 18 TSP employees in accordance with the clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 Ex.D-2 is wholly misconceived. ( 9. ) We are of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellant that the direction of the Industrial Court in the order dated 12.3.2004 to the appellant to regularise the 16 to 18 TSP employees in accordance with the clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 Ex.D-2 is wholly misconceived. This is because in the reference made to the Industrial Court by the State Government under Section 51 of the Act by order dated 22.3.1997 one of the subjects of dispute referred to the Industrial Court for arbitration was whether TSP employees working in the Undertaking of the appellant performed the work of permanent nature and is it proper to classify them as TSP employees ? The reason for making such a reference is that if TSP employees would be classified as permanent employees they would be entitled to regularisation in service. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal however came to the conclusion that TSP employees were not working on vacant posts and were not eligible to be categorised as permanent employees, but the Tribunal also found that during the pendency of the reference, a settlement had been arrived at between the management and the Coordinating Committee of the workers employed in the industry of the appellant on 20.10.1999 over the subjects of dispute and clause 9 of the settlement Ex.D-2. ( 10. ) This will be clear from English translation of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 12.3.2004 of the Industrial Court quoted herein below: "Other aspect of the case is also worth considering. After the referral of the case by the Govt, on 2. 10.99, settlement arrived at between the Management and the Co-ordinating committee of the workers employed in the Industry over the dispute arisen between the parties. This settlement is Ex.D-2. Regarding the process of accomplishment of the settlement and its registration, second party witness Shri Lakhan Dwivedi has deposed in detail in his deposition, which finds place in the settlement- Ex. D-2. Certificate of Settlement-Ex.D-10 has been produced. First party/Esbestos Janta Majdoor Union has neither challenged this settlement nor adduced any evidence so that it may be proved that the settlement is unfavourable to the workers. First Party witness Mohd. D-2. Certificate of Settlement-Ex.D-10 has been produced. First party/Esbestos Janta Majdoor Union has neither challenged this settlement nor adduced any evidence so that it may be proved that the settlement is unfavourable to the workers. First Party witness Mohd. Ibrar during his cross-examination has admitted that the workers accepting the settlement arrived at in the year of 99 (Ex.D-2) have been given benefit of the settlement. He is one amongst the two workers who has not got the benefit of that settlement another worker is Foolchand Dubey. He has admitted that both of them did not communicate their acceptance to the employer-Undertaking. Employers witness-Shri Lakhan Lal Dwivedi has deposed in his examination-in- chief "Affidavits of the workers accepting the settlement dated 20.10.99. Ex.D-2 has been produced in this case that affidavits are Ex.D-12 to. Today I have brought the original Affidavits". These affidavits have been marked as Ex.D-12 to D-344. It is evident thereby that besides two employees all of the employees, after submitting the affidavit as to the acceptance of the settlement have obtained the benefit of the settlement Ex.D-2. Although, in the light of the Order dated 30.11.2001 passed in W.P. No.2043/01 statements of the employees were reduced in writing in the Camp Court, Kami. Those statements were made by the present and former employees. Many of them have stated that they were forced to sign the settlement and they are not. agreed with the settlement. But by reason of availing the benefit out of that settlement their statements are not material. Here it would be proper to mention that on behalf of the First Party neither any Schedule by the State Govt, has been incorporated nor any statement on the validity of the settlement Ex.D-2 has been produced. Moreover, this Court is not empowered under the MPIR Act, 1960 to declare any registered settlement as invalid. On behalf of the Esbestos Janta Majdoor Union judicial principles laid down in the judicial citations AIR 1978 SC 548 , AIR 1979 SC 876 ,1966 (1) SCC 639, 1989 MPLSR 195, 1986 MPLJ 285 have been produced and it has been submitted that the workers working for long time should be regularised. It has also been argued that in case cross-examination has not been made on any question, it should be held undisputed. Judicial citation 2004 MPHT 16 has been produced in this regard. It has also been argued that in case cross-examination has not been made on any question, it should be held undisputed. Judicial citation 2004 MPHT 16 has been produced in this regard. By citing the judicial citation 2001 (1) LLJ 569 , it has been argued that direction to regularise the TSP workers should be given. Although facts of the said judicial citations are different to the facts of the present and is not applicable yet it is evident that present strength of the TSP employees is 16 to 18 in the light of the settlement Ex.D-2 employer should proceed to regularise them. This proceeding should be done as per the Clause no.9 of the settlement Ex.D-2. Because on behalf of the employer it has been stated that the said settlement is in force to this date. With the above direction this reference case is disposed of. As the propriety of the relief sought in the Schedules of the Reference Case has not been established therefore answer to these Schedules is given in negative and case is rejected with the above direction. Parties to bear their respective costs." Obviously, the Industrial Court could not have ignored the settlement on the subjects of dispute between the management and the Coordinating Committee arrived at on 20.10.1999 during the pendency of the reference which was binding on the appellant which was a party to the settlement and rightly directed the appellant to regularise the services of the remaining 16 to 18 TSP employees working in the undertaking of the appellant. ( 11. ) In fact, we find from para 13 of the impugned order dated 13.2.2006 of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.883/2004 that Shri Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before the learned Single Judge that under the industrial jurisprudence a statutory agreement arrived at under the Act should be preferred than an award passed by any Court with respect to any dispute and if any statutory agreement is arrived at under the Act, then the matter could be disposed of in accordance with the said agreement. The appellant thus appears to have relied on the settlement dated 20.10.1999 not only before the Industrial Court in the reference but also before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The appellant thus appears to have relied on the settlement dated 20.10.1999 not only before the Industrial Court in the reference but also before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The appellant also does not dispute that under clause 9 of the settlement appellant had agreed that 75 labourers of TSP would be regularised during the period of agreement. Therefore, the appellant cannot now take a stand that the direction in the order of the Industrial Court is a nullity and the direction in this regard in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside by the Court. ( 12. ) Moreover, the preamble of the Act indicates that the Act has been made to make provision for settlement of industrial disputes and Section 51 of the Act makes it clear that if an industrial dispute exists and it was not likely to be settled by other means, the government may refer the dispute or any other matter to be connected with or relevant to the dispute for arbitration to an Industrial Court. Thus, where a dispute is referred in accordance with Section 51 of the Act to the Industrial Court for arbitration by the Government and during the pendency of the reference a settlement of the industrial dispute is arrived at between the employer and the employees, the Industrial Court must give due weight to the terms of the settlement unless it is satisfied that the settlement was not just or fair or was vitiated by malafides or absence of consent of the parties to the dispute. The contention of the appellant that the direction in the order of the Industrial Court to the appellant to regularise the services of 16 to 18 TSP employees in terms of clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and was a nullity is misconceived and the authorities cited by the appellant have no application to the facts of this case. ( 13. ) Mr. Rajendra Tiwari and Mr. ( 13. ) Mr. Rajendra Tiwari and Mr. Sanjay Verma finally submitted that at present there are only 16 TSP employees and out of these one Vidhyadhar Dubey has been dismissed for major misconduct after a legal domestic inquiry and his case is pending in this Court and out of the remaining 15 employees, 11 have deposed before the Industrial Court that they have not accepted the settlement dated 20.10.1999 and four have not come to depose before the Industrial Court and unless these 15 TSP employees comply with Clause 29 of the agreement and the order of mis Court dated 30.11.2001 passed in W.P. No .6948/2000 they cannot be classified permanent. They further submitted that there is no vacancy at the plant at Keymore and the appellant is not in a position to supply extra manpower under the circumstances and hence the appellant should be given an option to compensate the TSP employees by making payment to them under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. ( 14. ) The settlement dated 20.10.1999 was a result of a bargain between the management and the representative of the employees on the basis of conditions as were prevailing at the time of the settlement and the direction of the Industrial Court for regularisation of the 16 to 18 TSP employees is on the basis of evidence led before the Industrial Court and has not been challenged by the appellant in a writ petition. In the absence of such a challenge, we could only consider whether this direction of the Industrial Court was beyond its jurisdiction and was a nullity and we have held that the direction was within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and was not a nullity. Hence, we cannot set aside or modify the direction of the learned Single Judge to regularise the services of the 16 to 18 TSP employees, but the appellant may negotiate a fresh settlement with the concerned employees if it is so advised. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.