Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus in directing the second respondent to implement the Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Na.Ka.No.1067/2000 dated 18.09.2000 entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent before the Labour Officer, Cuddalore. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Worker in Kuthalampattu Village on 16.09.1997. The petitioner was terminated on 01.05.2000 by means of an oral order by the second respondent. Later, she filed a petition under Section 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Officer, Cuddalore. However, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Settlement as per Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.1067/2000 dated 18.09.2000. 3. The case of the petitioner is that even after Section 12(3) Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 entered into between herself and the 2nd respondent, she was not provided with employment with continuity of service and also the backwages and therefore, she has filed the present writ petition before this Court to implement the said settlement dated 18.09.2000. 4. A settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act is quite sacrosant and bind the parties, unless procured by fraud. The object of settlement is to maintain an industrial peace. 5. A perusal of Section 12(3) Settlement dated 18.09.2000, entered into between the parties, clearly points out that the petitioner was to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and back wages and it was also agreed that from 01.05.2000, the petitioner was to be paid a salary of Rs.150/-as per G.O.Ms.No.66, Rural Development Department, dated 03.02.1990, etc. 6. Even after Section 12(3) Settlement dated 18.09.2000, entered into between the parties, since the petitioner was not reinstated into service, she was constrained to address a letter dated 13.03.2002 to the first respondent/ Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Kuthalampattu, praying for reinstatement and the payment of arrears of salary from 01.05.2000 onwards. 7. In Law, Section 12(3) Settlement, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, is binding between the parties, inter se and the same cannot be nullified at later point of time by any party either in a self serving manner or in an unilateral fashion, in the considered opinion of this Court. 7. In Law, Section 12(3) Settlement, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, is binding between the parties, inter se and the same cannot be nullified at later point of time by any party either in a self serving manner or in an unilateral fashion, in the considered opinion of this Court. As on date the said settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act is a valid one and the same is in force and therefore the same has to be implemented by the second respondent in true letter and spirit without any deviation whatsoever. Also, it transpires that as per Section 12(3) Settlement dated 18.09.2000, on behalf of the second respondent, the President has signed. 8. Therefore, it is candidly clear that the petitioner has to be reinstated with continuity of service as per the Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 18.09.2000 and she has to be paid the arrears of salary and other benefits. Considering the plight of the petition and since the prayer is only to implement the Section 12(3) Settlement, by means of issuance of writ of mandamus, this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, good Conscience allows this writ petition by directing the second respondent to scrupulously implement the Settlement as per Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 18.09.2000, (without precipitating and procastinating the matter any further) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.