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 13.2.2006passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 883/2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 2. ) The facts relevant for disposing of this appeal briefly are that the appellant No.1, which is a registered trade union of employees of the establishment of respondent No.l at Katni, raised an industrial dispute relating to the service conditions of the employees of the respondent No. 1. After conciliation proceedings failed, the State Government passed an order dated 22.3.1997 making a reference of 29 subjects of dispute to the Industrial Court under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act1) which was registered as Reference Case No.3/97. During the pendency of the reference, the appellant No. 1 ceased to be the Representative Union of the employees of the undertaking of the appellant in May, 1998 and the employees formed a Coordination Committee. On 20.10.1999 a settlement was entered between the Coordination Committee of the employees and the management of the respondent No.l in presence of the Labour Officer and the management filed an application before the Industrial Court for passing an award in terms of the settlement dated 20.10.1999. The reference was amended by the State Government and the Labour Officer was authorised by the State Government to represent the employees of the respondent No.2 before the Industrial Court. ( 3. ) The appellant No. 1 then filed Writ Petition No .2043/2001 before this Court in which the Court passed orders on 30.11.2001 directing the Labour Officer not to enter into any compromise with the management of respondent No.l and authorised the appellant No. 1 to remain present on each day of the proceeding before the Industrial Court. Appellant No.2 who was working as Temporary Substitute Pool (TSP) employee filed an application before the Labour Court to classify him as a permanent employee and also filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Industrial Court in Reference Case No.3/97 for stay of the reference proceedings, but the Industrial Court dismissed the application. The appellant No.2 then moved this Court in W.P. No.6984/2002 and the Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 17.3.2003 with the direction that the application filed by the appellant No.2 before the Labour Court shall remain stayed till decision in the reference application by the Industrial Court and if the grievance of the appellant No.2 remains unredressed by the decision of the Industrial Court in the reference case, the Labour Court will decide it in accordance with law and the appellant No.2 will be free to participate in the reference proceedings to protect his interest. ( 4. ) Thereafter, respondent No.2 became the Representative Union and by order dated 16.7.2002 the State Government again amended the reference and directed that in Reference Case No.3/97 respondent No.2 will represent the employees of the undertaking of the respondent No.l. In Reference Case No. 3/97, however, respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence but the appellants No. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 1 led evidence and the Industrial Court ultimately disposed of the reference by order dated 12.3.2004. Appellants No. 1 and 2 challenged the order dated 12.3:2004 of the Industrial Court in W.P. No.883/2004 on various grounds, but by the impugned order the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal. ( 5. ) At the hearing, the appellant No.2, who is also the President of the appellant No.l Union, appeared in person and submitted that the first subject of dispute referred to the Industrial Court in Reference Case No.3/97 was whether the TSP employees working in the undertaking of the respondent No. 1 performed the work of permanent nature and was it proper to classify them as TSP employees ? He took us through his own evidence and the evidence of Shri Lakhan Lai Dwivedi and submitted that the conclusion of the Industrial Court that TSP employees who were not working on any vacant posts were not eligible to be categorised as regular or permanent was not at all correct. He submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order should have set aside this conclusion of the Industrial Court and should have held that TSP employees who have been working for years together in the undertaking of respondent No. 1 are doing work of permanent nature and should be regularised in service. ( 6. He submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order should have set aside this conclusion of the Industrial Court and should have held that TSP employees who have been working for years together in the undertaking of respondent No. 1 are doing work of permanent nature and should be regularised in service. ( 6. ) In support of his submissions, respondent No.2 cited a decision in Bijlee Karmachari Sangh, M.P. and another vs M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur and others, 1986 MPLJ 285 in which a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that keeping thousands of employees on nominal muster roll for years together and paying them daily wages amounts to discrimination and such employees are entitled to be treated as permanent. He cited Ichalkaranji Cooperative Spining Mills Ltd. vs Deccan Co-operative Soot Girani Kamgar Sangh and others, 1991(1) LLJ 220, in which the Bombay High Court has held that Badli workers and casual employees who were on rolls for more than two years have to be confirmed. He relied on Factory Manager, Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Prakash Singh Rood Singh and others, 1996 MPLJ Vol. XLI 822, in which a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that a Badli workman means a workman who is employed in the establishment in place of another workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of the establishment and merely because the employe) b.is, chosen to describe a workman as a Badli workman would not be conclusive in this regard and the employer must prove that he was employed on the post of regular employee which had fallen vacant due to his remaining absent temporarily and was to demit as soon as the regular employee rejoined. He cited Hindustan Machine Tools and others vs M. Rangareddy and others, 2001 (1) LLJ 596, in which the Supreme Court having found that casual labourer have been continued for a long spell of two-three years observed that there was presumption of regular need for services of such casual labourers and was obligatory for the employer to examine the feasibility of regularisation of casual labourers. He also cited the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab and others vs Kulwant Singh and others, 2005 (1) LLJ 329 directing regularisation of services of workmen who worked for more than 10 to 17 years by creating posts for them. ( 7. ) The respondent No.2 next submitted that the conclusion of the Industrial Court that TSP employees working in the undertaking of the respondent No.l cannot be classified as permanent was not really based on evidence but on the settlement dated 20.10.1999. He submitted that the settlement dated 20.10.1990 was not in the interest of the employees and the Industrial Court ought not to have relied on the settlement to which the appellant No. 1 was not a party. He submitted that the Representative Union also was not a party to the settlement and the settlement was arrived at between the management of the respondent No. 1 and the Co-ordination Committee formed by the employees. He submitted that Section 98 of the Act provides that the Industrial Court will make an award in terms of the agreement arrived at between the employer and the Representative Union who were parties to any industrial dispute pending before the Industrial Court and therefore the Industrial Court could not make an award in terms of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 to which the Representative Union was not a party. He submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that the settlement dated 20.10.1999 was a statutory agreement between the employer and the Representative Union and Industrial Court had to make the award in terms of the settlement as provided in Section 98 of the Act was thus not correct. ( 8. ) Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the conclusion of the Industrial Court that TSP employees in the establishment of the respondent No. 1 cannot be classified as permanent as they were not working on vacant posts was based on the evidence that was adduced by the parties before the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge has rightly held in the impugned order that the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reappreciate evidence as an Appellate Court and come to a different conclusion. ( 9. ( 9. ) Regarding the settlement dated 20.10.1999, Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Verma submitted that the settlement was a fair and just one covering different subjects of dispute referred to the Industrial Court in the reference and, as a matter of fact, the Industrial Court has found that the majority of the employees working in the establishment of the respondent No.l have accepted the benefits of the settlement dated 20.10.1999. They submitted that it is only a few TSP employee; who have refused to accept all the terms of the settlement. They cited Herbertsom Ltd. vs. Workmen of Herbertsom Ltd. and others, AIR 1977 SC 322 in.whicl the Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that each individual workei should know the implications of the settlement and since a recognised union whicl is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour enters into a settlement ir the interests of labour, the Industrial Court has to give due weight and consideratior to a settlement arrived at in the course of collective bargaining. ( 10. ) We have considered the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and we find that in para 6 of the order dated 12.3.2004 disposing of the Reference Case No.3/97, the Industrial Court has discussed the pleadings and evidence on the dispute whether TSP employees working in the undertaking of respondent No. 1 can be classified as regular or permanent employees and has come to the conclusion that they cannot be classified as regular or permanem employees as they are not working on any vacant posts. The English translation of the relevant portion of para 6 of the order dated 12.3.2004 of the Industrial Court is extracted herein below: "This Schedule is related to the dispute that whether the work of TSP employees in the factory is of regular nature and whether it is appropriate due to this reason to classified them as TSP employees. In this respect, the first party contented that TSP workers work continuously and they do not work in place of regular employees but they work on vacant position due to which they are eligible to be categorised as regular and it is not appropriate to categorise as TSP employees. It has also been argued that there is no such categorisation in the permanent orders, therefore, aforesaid categorisation is in appropriate. It has also been argued that there is no such categorisation in the permanent orders, therefore, aforesaid categorisation is in appropriate. Aforesaid argument is not acceptable because first party had not proved by any documentary evidence that TSP employees work in the vacant place. Getting regular work cannot be the proof of the claim that Badli workers work in the vacant places in addition to the regular employees. First party in paragraph 1 of the statement stated as under - "and they work as a temporary substitute workers for a long period, who are deprived of benefits and legal facilities being provided to regular employees and their services are not secured. They do not get a salary when they are not engaged for a work on any day whereas they are bound to remain present on the gate of undertaking". It is clear from the previously mentioned pleading that TSP employees get their duties in shifts only and therefore they had to present for work in shifts only. In the written argument, Asbestor Janta Mazdoor Union contended that until the year 96-98 the daily absence of regular employees was 20-25% and this percentage in number was 200-220 per day. It is clear that 800-880 workers work per day. I perused the statement of witness Shri Lakhan Lal Dwivedi. He asserted to have prepared the chart of number of regular employees who were not present on their work until the year 95-96 and 97-98. He asserted to have prepared the chart based on attendance register of the workers. However, the first party did not cross-examine on rest of this chart. Executive President of Asbestos Janta Mazdoor Union Ravi Shankar Dubey admitted in his cross-examination that all the workers got their benefits on the basis of agreement (Ex.D-1) before the agreement of Ex.D-2. Witness admitted that it is mentioned in the para 9 of the agreement (Ex.D-2) that total 75 TSP employees were made regular. Witness of first party Mohammad Ibrar admitted in his cross-examination that on 22.9.97 the number of workers in the department of second party institution was determined. It is also true that the number was ascertained according to the agreement of year 1993. It is also true that the agreement of the year 1999 which is Ex.D-2 workers accepting this agreement had got the benefit of the agreement. It is also true that the number was ascertained according to the agreement of year 1993. It is also true that the agreement of the year 1999 which is Ex.D-2 workers accepting this agreement had got the benefit of the agreement. The two of the workers who did not get the benefit of the agreement, one of them was Foolchand Dubey. It is clear from this that the agreement (D-2) which is of20.10.99, all the workers except two workers accepted it and got the benefit of it. Witness Ravishankar Dubey on behalf of Asbestos Janta Mazdoor Union took voluntary retirement in June, 2000 and got its benefit and gave affidavit (Ex.D-3). Later said that he took the benefit of VRS due to pressure. However, the witness asserted that he raised no objection regarding VRS in his deposition. He did not produce any document in this respect in the Court. Witness of the employer Shri Lakhan Lai Dwivedi said that agreement (D/2) was done after the Registrar in accordance with the order of Industrial Tribunal registered following prescribed procedure and the agreement, Indore dated 31/10/2000 which was passed in Appeal No. 147/2000/MPIR. This agreement (D/2) is effective until today. In this agreement, the number of workers was fixed and regular employees were working according to the prescribed number of posts and no post is vacant. It can be concluded in respect of Schedule No. 1 that TSP workers who were not working on vacant posts were not eligible to be categorised as regular as they worked in the capacity of shift workers in the absence of regular employees." ( 11. ) It will be clear from the aforesaid discussion in para 6 of the order of the Industrial Court that the Industrial Court has not only taken into consideration the pleading and evidence of the appellant No.2, President of the appellant No. 1 Union, but also the evidence of Shri Lakhan Lal Dwivedi, the other witness examined by the appellants No.l and 2, and only thereafter concluded that TSP employees who are not eligible to be categorised as permanent as they are working in the shifts in the absence of regular employees. The High Court in exercise of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot reappreciate the evidence before the Industrial Court and come to a different conclusion. The High Court in exercise of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot reappreciate the evidence before the Industrial Court and come to a different conclusion. The High Court can interfere with the findings of the Industrial Court only if it comes to the conclusion, that the Industrial Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in holding in para 20 of the impugned order that on merits the Industrial Court has examined the dispute on the basis of evidence placed on record and given a finding of fact, and these findings of fact cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal calling for interference by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge has further held in the impugned order that the Industrial Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex court in Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, AIR 1986 SC 1514 and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs S.G. Kotturappa and another, (2005) 3 SCC 409 , in which it has been held that the Badli (TSP) workman gets works only in the absence of regular employees and have no right to claim employment. ( 12. ) The discussion in para 6 of the order of the Industrial Court in the reference quoted above would also show that the Industrial Court has taken into consideration that all the workers got the benefits on the basis of settlement dated 20.10.1999 and as per clause 9 of the settlement 75 TSP employees were to be made regular. We further find that in para 9 of the order dated 12.3.2004 the Industrial Court discussed the question of regularisation of the TSP employees and has found that the strength of TSP employees on the date of the order of the Industrial Court were 16 to 18 and accordingly the Industrial Court has directed the respondent No.l employer to regularise these 16 to 18 TSP employees in accordance with the clause 6 of the settlement dated 20.10.1999. The English translation of paras 9 and 10 of the order dated 12.3.2004 of the Industrial Court is quoted herein below: "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. 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." ( 13. ) The discussion in paras 9 and 10 of the order of the Industrial Court quoted above would show that although the Industrial Court has held that the authorities cited by the appellants for regularisation of employees who have worked for long periods did not apply to the facts of the present case, it has directed the respondent No.l to regularise the remaining 16 to 18 TSP employees. The Industrial Court has also found that the benefits of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 have been received by most of the employees and hence the settlement was in the interest of the employees. The Industrial Court has also found that the benefits of the settlement dated 20.10.1999 have been received by most of the employees and hence the settlement was in the interest of the employees. Thus, even if the settlement was not entered into by the Representative Union and even if the appellant No. 1 Union was not a party to the settlement and the Committee formed by the employees had entered into the settlement with the management, the Industrial Court having found that the most of the employees have not objected to the settlement but have taken the benefits of the settlement was bound to give due weight and consideration to the settlement and make an award in terms of such settlement because amicable settlement of industrial dispute is one of the objects of the Act. We therefore hold that this appeal has no merit and accordingly dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.