ORDER In these petitions the Management has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10-1-2008 at Annexure-R and also the award dated 15-12-2008 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore at Annexure-U in Ref. No. 74 of 2000 and for such other reliefs. 2. According to the petitioner, petitioner is a limited company engaged in manufacture of printed circuit boards used for all professional, industrial and defence equipments from January 1984; there is another company by name M/s. Mini Circuits which has commenced manufacturing thick film hybrid circuits from 1987. Accordingly to the petitioner, these two concerns are different companies with distinct legal entity and different product, but situated in the same premises. 16 employees were working in the manual plating plant during the year 1990-91 and only three employees were recruited with higher level skill/qualification as manual plant was automatic to take care of the sophisticated plant and 16 employees were deployed in other department and that there was excess man power in the petitioner's company even during 1990-91; during the year 1993 a charter of demand was submitted by the respondent-Union and simultaneously the Management also placed the counter demand out of which one of the demand was to reduce the man power by 20%. During the wage negotiation the Union did not agree for man power reduction. M/s. Mini Circuit which was subsequently established got effected as the indigenous telecom components who were the only customers to M/s. Mini Circuit was affected due to globalisation, as a result of which the company suffered loss leading to rotational layoff; consequently, the turnover of the petitioner-company also got reduced since there were no orders from telecom section. During the year 1995 since they could not run M/s. Mini Circuit it has informed the Union that the company has to be closed and the protracted negotiation with the Union led to lock out in M/s. Micro Pack. Ultimately a settlement was signed on 12-6-1995 as per Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 between the petitioner's company and the Trade Union and one of the terms of settlement was that the employees of Micro Pack should accept the induction of 18 employees of Mini Circuit and extend support in imparting training to them. Ultimately a settlement was signed on 12-6-1995 as per Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 between the petitioner's company and the Trade Union and one of the terms of settlement was that the employees of Micro Pack should accept the induction of 18 employees of Mini Circuit and extend support in imparting training to them. One more settlement was entered into between the Management of Mini Circuits and their employees through which 18 employees of the Mini Circuit got separated under the scheme on account of closure of Mini Circuit and it is stated that as per the scheme 18 workmen were paid compensation at the rate of two months' salary for every year of service and also each of them was paid three months' notice period salary along with the compensation as a special case which was effective from 8-6-1995 and even they were paid PF and Gratuity. Insofar as the remaining 18 employees who were working in M/s. Mini Circuit, it was agreed to take them as trainees on a consolidated stipend of Rs. 2,200/- per month and also agreed to regularise them on the roll of the petitioner's company camely Micro Pack Limited, subject to completion of training successfully and as per Clause 4 of the settlement, the employees who were separated under the scheme because of the closure of Mini Circuit would be given preference for appointment in Micro Pack subject to availability of vacancy and their acquiring appropriate qualification and skill for the vacancy. Accordingly to the petitioner during 1995 the petitioner had agreed for the said condition but at present the situation has totally changed and it has gone beyond the control of the petitioner-Management; it has incurred huge loss due to the fluctuation in the turnover and steep fall in the sales as compared from 1992-93 to 2002-03, as a result, they declared a separate scheme for the workmen of Micro Pack and even the workmen have opted for voluntary retirement and a huge sum of money has been paid to them as compensation and that no workmen working in the petitioner's company since December 2001. It is stated that there is a accumulated loss of Rs. 8.80 crores to the petitioner-company due to the steep fall in the turnover and it has become difficult for the company to comply with Clause 4 of the settlement dated 12-6-1995. It is stated that there is a accumulated loss of Rs. 8.80 crores to the petitioner-company due to the steep fall in the turnover and it has become difficult for the company to comply with Clause 4 of the settlement dated 12-6-1995. Further it is stated that compliance of Clause 4 of the settlement would arise subject to the availability of the vacancy and the workmen concerned acquiring the appropriate qualification and skill and that there are no vacancies to accommodate 18 workmen on preference rather the Management has introduced the voluntary separation scheme during November 2001 for all the 121 workmen and as per the scheme all the 121 workmen have accepted the voluntary separation scheme and the question of giving preference to 18 of the workmen as per the settlement dated 12-6-1995 does not arise. It is also stated that in the year 1997 the Union gave a charter of demands for revision of scale out of which, one of the demand, i.e., demand No. 24 was to reinstate the remaining 18 employees of the Mini Circuit who were separated during 1995. Expressing the difficulty that there are no vacancies to accommodate 18 of the workmen as suggested by the Union who were separated under the scheme, the Management has come up with these petitions assailing the award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref. No. 740f20or, dated 15-12-2008 in ordering for reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of filing the claim statement i.e., 24-7-2002. 3. Heard. 4. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management that the award of the Labour Court directing to reinstate the workmen with 50% of back wages is overlooking the condition provided under the charter of demands/settlement. Since there was a huge loss incurred by the petitioner-company to the tune of Rs. 8.80 crores they introduced a voluntary separation scheme to its employees wherein 121 workmen have opted for VRS during November 2001 and the question of taking 18 employees as per Clause 4 of the settlement does not arise. Since there was a huge loss incurred by the petitioner-company to the tune of Rs. 8.80 crores they introduced a voluntary separation scheme to its employees wherein 121 workmen have opted for VRS during November 2001 and the question of taking 18 employees as per Clause 4 of the settlement does not arise. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has relied upon the charter of demands without looking into the subsequent settlement arrived at between the parties on 8-10-1997 wherein Chapter 9 of the Memorandum of settlement provides for, that they will not raise any dispute what so ever involving either directly or indirectly making additional finance liability on the company during the period of settlement and submitted that the award of the Labour Court for reinstatement with 50% of back wages is contrary to the terms and conditions of settlement and as such, the impugned award has to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Union has vehemently submitted that one of the condition in the settlement arrived at was to accommodate these 18 workmen from M/s. Mini Circuit unit to Micro Pack unit, since the said clause has remained undisturbed during the Memorandum of settlement at Annexure-F necessarily these 18 persons have to be accommodated and that now the Management is taking a different stand without adhering to the conditions of settlement and as such, there is no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. 6. In the light of the arguments advanced, let me consider, whether the impugned award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore in ordering for reinstatement of the workmen with 50% back wages from the date of claim petition is justified? 7. Annexure-C is the chartered demands placed by the Union wherein condition No. 24 provides for the workman retrenched from Mini Circuits shall be given jobs in Micro Pack giving them service weightage and this shall be as per the understanding arrived at on 12-6-1995 and the period of settlement will be for a period' of three years i.e., with effect from 1-1-1997. Accordingly to the Management, in the reply to the charter of demands, at Annexure-D regarding separation of the employees in the Mini Circuits, it is stated by them that they have implemented the agreement in toto by observing some of the employees in Micro Pack on the basis of 12(3) settlement dated 12-6-1995 and expressed and that they are unable to provide opportunity to reemploy the retrenched Mini Circuits employees and that they have expressed various difficulties in the counter filed by them for the charter of demands submitted by the Union. Ultimately Annexure-F is the Memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties. As per Annexure-B the Memorandum of settlement dated 12-6-1995 condition No.4 provides for, those employees who are separated under the scheme because of closure would be given preference for appointment in Micropack subject to availability of vacancy and their acquiring appropriate qualification and skill for the vacancy. 8. Annexure-F is the subsequent Memorandum of settlement entered into between the Union and the Management. Relying upon the same, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the general conditions provided in Chapter IX of Annexure-F has stated that this settlement sets at rest all the demands raised by the employees and this is the full and final settlement of all the demands raised by the Union/employees and as per the Point No. 1 of Chapter IX, the Union and all the employees agree that they will not during the period of settlement either individually or collectively of through Union make any demands whatsoever or raise any dispute involving either directly or indirectly any additional financial liability to the company. Accordingly, submitted that despite such undertaking was given in a settlement once again the Union has raised the dispute before the Labour Court although those persons have been separated from MIs, Mini Circuit unit and accommodated in the Micro Pack unit and thereafter all of them have taken voluntary retirement and still they are pressing for the earlier condition in the settlement dated 12-6-1995 as if the very said condition is prevailing although the same is merged in the subsequent settlement dated 8-10-1997. 9. 9. As against this, it is the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the conditions regarding accommodating 18 of the workmen in the Micro Pack unit remains undisturbed and there is no discussion as such held in this regard in the subsequent settlement and a such the norms remains unchallenged during the currency of the settlement as such, it is for the Management to reinstate them and to extend the per cent of the back wages as ordered by the Labour Court. 10. The difficulty expressed by the Management is that after the voluntary retirement scheme they never accommodated any new appointees in the cadre from outside and the company has suffered huge loss due to the fluctuation in the market and as such, the question of accommodating these 18- workmen would not arise as the October 1997 settlement put an end to the earlier demand. 11. The Labour Court having noted the arguments on both sides and also noticing that the workmen are without jobs and suffering financial hardship and that the second party Management has admitted Clause 4 of the settlement entered into between the parties on 12-6-1995, as .1 matter of fact finding despite taking note of the further settlement ha3 formed an opinion that the workmen are entitled for reinstatement as per Clause 4 of the settlement dated 12-6-1995 since the same remain intact in the subsequent settlement arrived between the parties during October 1997. However, the October 1997 settlement provides for merger of the conditions of settlement arrived during 1995 and the subsequent event is to the effect that the petitioner-company has suffered a huge loss and voluntary retirement has also been offered to 121 workmen including these 18 persons who had been absorbed to the petitioner's unit from the Mini Circuit unit. But however there is one more clause provided in Chapter IX of the settlement of October 1997 i.e., condition No.9 which reads, the terms and conditions except whose specifically dealt in this settlement, as stipulated in the previous settlement/and as per the previous practices/norms shall remain unchanged during the currency of this settlement'. This once again gives raise to controversy and thereby it makes clear that the commitment made to accommodate these 18 workmen remained undisturbed even at the time of entering into settlement. This once again gives raise to controversy and thereby it makes clear that the commitment made to accommodate these 18 workmen remained undisturbed even at the time of entering into settlement. In these circumstances, the Labour Court was of the view that there is a commitment on the part of the Management and as such, the Management ought to have accommodated all these 18 workmen immediately thereafter. 12. As per the contention of the Management there is a loss suffered by them and further they did not absorb any of the persons as against the vacancies and according to them there are no such vacancies and that they have reduced the strength of the workmen due to the recession and they cannot accommodate all the 18 persons. The difficulty expressed by the Management to accommodate the 18 workmen that they have suffered a huge loss of Rs. 8.80 crores has not been properly demonstrated. The fact remains that the production is still going on in the unit. In the circumstances, as and when the necessity arises preference shall be given to these 18 employees to extract any nature of work or the work which is being discharged by them earlier without adopting any indirect tactics to deprive their right. 13. Insofar as payment of back wages is concerned as ordered by the Labour Court, it may not be appropriate, since the petitioner-Management has already paid huge compensation as one time settlement. However, since there is an undertaking to accommodate these 18 workmen, on preference, the Management shall accommodate them as and when the necessity arises without adopting any tactics or by entrusting the work to any other contract labourers. 14. Accordingly, petitions allowed in part.