ORDER : 1. This appeal was heard on April 9, 2009 and it was orally indicated that the appeal will be dismissed with detailed reasons. Since some further clarifications were necessary, the matter was placed on the Board on February 9, 2010 and parties were heard. In our opinion there is absolutely no merit in this appeal and the same is being dismissed, for the reasons stated hereinafter. 2. The facts are that the appellant was employee of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, posted at Badarpur Thermal Power Station (BTPS) working in the post of Time Keeper at the relevant time. On September 19, 1984 there was an unfortunate accident of the Haryana Roadways bus on the Mathura road in front of gate No. 1 of BTPS involving brother-in-law and child of one Shri S.P. Pathak, Technician, BTPS. A number of workers of BTPS had gathered at the site of the accident when Shri V. Sunderrajan, then General Manager of BTPS arrived there. The case of the management is that three workmen, namely, Shri Surinder Kaushik (appellant), Shri Nek Chand and Shri Subal Sil, amongst others who were present at the site or the accident, were found instigating and inciting the workers to indulge in riotous and disorderly behaviour. These three workmen then gheraoed General Manager Sunderrajan and assaulted him in front of the huge gathering of employees of BTPS and also caused damage to his car. 3. The management of BTPS issued charge sheet dated January 30, 1985 which was duly served on these workmen. The appellant as well as other charged workmen vide letter dated February 2, 1985 authorised Badarpur Karmachari Sanyukt Morcha (BKSM) to represent them with respect to the inquiry proceedings, in reply to the charge sheet dated January 30, 1985, the appellant and the other charged workmen submitted their respective replies on February 14, 1985 through BKSM. The same was duly signed by the appellant as well. As the reply of the appellant to the charge sheet was not found satisfactory, the management of BTPS decided to conduct a departmental inquiry on the said charges. Vide office order dated February 28, 1985 Shri G. Venkatraman, the then Dy. General Manager (PS), BTPS was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. As the reply of the appellant to the charge sheet was not found satisfactory, the management of BTPS decided to conduct a departmental inquiry on the said charges. Vide office order dated February 28, 1985 Shri G. Venkatraman, the then Dy. General Manager (PS), BTPS was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. BKSM vide letter dated March 5, 1985 as well as the employees vide their individual letters dated March 6, 1985 made representations to the management of the BTPS that it had no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of the incident dated September 19, 1985 and that they would boycott the proceedings at every stage. 4. The Inquiry Officer initiated inquiry proceedings by issuing notice dated March 19, 1985 fixing the first date of inquiry as March 30, 1985. The said notice was sought to be served on the appellant by hand which he refused to accept after reading the same, purportedly under directions from the Union. The same was later served on the appellant through registered post and duly received by him. The other charged workmen who also refused to accept the notice by hand delivery were also served by registered post. The charged workmen through their authorised representative-Union via communication dated March 23, 1985 again referred to their earlier letter dated March 5, 1985 and reiterated that the management of BTPS had no jurisdiction to initiate inquiry against the charged workmen in respect of the incident of September 19, 1984. It was further stated therein that as already stated in the earlier letter no employee will attend the inquiry proceedings and the inquiry will be boycotted at every stage. 5. Accordingly none of the charged workmen or their authorised representative appeared in the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer on March 30, 1985. In the interest of justice, the Inquiry Officer, after recording the inquiry proceedings, adjourned the inquiry to April 13, 1985 with due notice dated March 30, 1985 to the appellant and the other charged workmen. The notice sent to the appellant by registered post was returned back by the postal authorities undelivered with the remark 'refused'. The notice dated March 30, 1985 was also displaced on the notice board of BTPS. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer was constrained to hold the proceedings ex parte on April 13, 1985. The notice sent to the appellant by registered post was returned back by the postal authorities undelivered with the remark 'refused'. The notice dated March 30, 1985 was also displaced on the notice board of BTPS. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer was constrained to hold the proceedings ex parte on April 13, 1985. Despite the fact that the Inquiry Officer had already given two opportunities, still in the interest of justice and fair play, he gave yet another chance by way of final opportunity to the charged workmen, including the appellant to participate in the inquiry proceedings by issuing further notice dated April 20, 1985 fixing the inquiry proceedings for May 4, 1985 for further proceedings that were going on ex parte. The said notice sent by registered post was also refused by the charged workmen, in the further hearing held on May 4, 1985, neither the charged workmen including the appellant, nor their, authorised representative appeared. The inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry ex parte, as before. In all, evidence of 15 witnesses including those who were eye witnesses to the incident, was recorded. The Inquiry Officer on appreciation of the evidence led by the management recorded the following conclusion: In view of the foregoing, I, as the Enquiry Officer, hereby state that I, based on the evidences and documents that the three charged-employees mentioned above, have been directly involved in the assault of GM(B), NTPC, and hence the charge of assault on them is proved beyond doubt. 6. The Disciplinary Authority,' accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer, issued show cause notice dated July 16, 1985, accompanied by the inquiry report and annexures thereto. It appears that at that time in a separate incident owing to violations of the provisions of Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA), which is applicable to the BTPS, a number of workmen of BTPS including the appellant had been arrested and lodged in jail from July 16, 1985 itself. As such the management of BTPS was constrained to serve the show cause notice dated July 16, 1985 to the appellant in the jail, In the presence of the Jail Superintendent. The appellant received the notice but refused to give any receipt. Despite service of show cause notice dated July 16, 1985, the appellant and other charged employees failed to submit their replies to the show cause notice. The appellant received the notice but refused to give any receipt. Despite service of show cause notice dated July 16, 1985, the appellant and other charged employees failed to submit their replies to the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal dated July 20, 1985. The order of dismissal dated July 20, 1985 was personally served on the appellant on July 21, 1985 in the presence of the Jail authorities, But the appellant again refused to acknowledge receipt of the said order. All the charged workmen including the appellant preferred appeal against the order of dismissal dated July 20, 1985 in which the appellant claimed that no notice whatsoever was ever served on him before the order of the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority and that he had learned about his dismissal from service only on July 23, 1985 when he went to resume his duty and when the security guard did not permit him to enter into the premises of the power station and handed him over the dismissal order. The appellate authority gave personal hearing in which 'they were duly represented by their defence assistants After giving an opportunity of hearing the appellate authority via a detailed order dated June 4, 1986 upheld dismissal order passed against the charged workmen. The appellant then raised an industrial dispute and reference came to be made by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its order dated July 5, 1991 with the following terms of reference: Whether the action of the management of BTPS in dismissing the services of Shri Surinder Kaushik from August 9, 1985 is justified, If not what relief the workman is entitled to? 7. By passing the award dated October 7, 2004 the Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appellant was unjustified for following reasons : (a) The dismissal of the respondent No. 2 was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the notice of enquiry was served and the entire enquiry proceedings were concluded within four or five days while the respondent No. 2 was in jail and as such no opportunity to defend himself was afforded to the respondent No. 2. (b) The enquiry proceedings and dismissal order dated July 20, 1985 was also vitiated as the respondent had been acquitted by the Criminal Court in the FIR No. 231/84 u/s 353/186/332/34 IPC. (b) The enquiry proceedings and dismissal order dated July 20, 1985 was also vitiated as the respondent had been acquitted by the Criminal Court in the FIR No. 231/84 u/s 353/186/332/34 IPC. Vide order dated October 31, 1994 whereby the Criminal Court had closed the right of prosecution to lead evidence on ground of delay In summoning/producing the prosecution witnesses thereby stretching that trial to 11 years. 8. The respondent challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal by filing W.P. (C) No. 19749/2004 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and the award of the Tribunal was set aside. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. 10. The first question that falls for our consideration is whether the dismissal of the appellant was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal on the issue of violation of natural justice are clearly perverse and suffers from error apparent on the face of the records. We are inclined to agree with finding of the learned Single Judge. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that inquiry proceedings were not concluded in 4 or 5 days while the appellant was in jail. The Tribunal totally also failed to consider the record of the inquiry proceedings before it which clearly demonstrated that the inquiry proceedings were held over a period of five months from January 30, 1985, that is the date of issuance of notice and was concluded on May 27, 1985, that is the date of submission of the inquiry report, during which period the appellant was not in jail. The case of the appellant was that he was in jail from July 6, 1985 to July 22, 1985. It is seen from the records that the notice of the inquiry proceedings was given by the inquiry officer on March 19, 1985, March 30, 1985 and April 20, 1985. This notice was sought to be delivered by hand which the appellant refused to accept after reading the same. Such refusal, evidenced by the witnesses, was duly recorded. These notices were also sent registered post to the office of the Union as well as the residential addressed of the appellant. This notice was sought to be delivered by hand which the appellant refused to accept after reading the same. Such refusal, evidenced by the witnesses, was duly recorded. These notices were also sent registered post to the office of the Union as well as the residential addressed of the appellant. Notice dated March 19, 1985 was duly delivered by the postal authorities to the appellant However, notice dated March 30, 1985 and April 24, 1985 were returned, undelivered by the postal authorities indicating refusal/avoidal on the part of the appellant to accept the same. The appellant had full knowledge of the inquiry proceedings which he intentionally boycotted. The appellant and the other charged workmen had appointed BKSM as their authorised representative to represent them in the inquiry proceedings. The said Union had also replied to the charge sheet on their behalf on February 14, 1985, which was not found satisfactory. After issuance of notice the Inquiry proceedings dated March 19, 1985' by the Inquiry Officer, which was duly served on the appellant, the Union responded to the same vide its letter dated March 23, 1985 to the Inquiry Officer wherein the Union stated as follows: It is a matter of great regret that in spite of responding to our letter in this regard by the Management, you have issued the enquiry notices to the employees.... We have already stated that no employee will attend the enquiry and the enquiry will be boycotted at all stages. So, you are requested that not to serve any notices of enquiry again and again to harass the employees. 11. It is in line with the above stand of the appellant and other charged workmen refused to accept further notices of the inquiry proceedings and boycotted the proceedings, it is in these circumstances that inquiry proceedings had to be conducted and concluded ex parte. The appellant was in jail only after the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings by the inquiry officer who had submitted his report on May 27, 1985 The appellant was in jail from July 16, 1985 to July 22, 1985 during which period only notice dated July 16, 1985 along with copy of the inquiry report was issued by the Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer proposing punishment of dismissal. Since the appellant was in jail the management was constrained to serve the notice on the appellant in jail. The notice was duly served in the presence of the Assistant Jail Superintendent. The appellant received notice but refused to give acknowledgment for the same. This fact of delivery or notice dated July 16, 1985 and refusal to give acknowledgment was duly confirmed in the report of the Assistant Jail Superintendent. The finding of the Tribunal that principles of natural justice were violated is thus, clearly erroneous and perverse. 12. On the second issue, the learned single Judge held that the acquittal of the appellant was on technical ground and the witnesses failed to depose before the Tribunal and the two witnesses who appeared before the Tribunal did not support the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1416 has no application. The order of dismissal due to the misconduct of the appellant was passed on July 22, 1985 whereas the criminal proceedings were concluded only in 1994. The material witnesses were not served with summons to appear before the Tribunal and were therefore not examined. The acquittal of the appellant was thus on technical ground and not based on merits. 13. It appears that the appellant took a new ground before the learned Single Judge that Director (Personnel) had entered into an agreement with the workmen which was signed by the workmen and the Director (Personnel). It was argued that service to one family member of the expired person would be given by the management, transfer of B.P. Thakur and N.S. Chauhan will be done. Welfare cause meeting would be held regularly and no action against workmen will be taken. A sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation will be paid to the children of the deceased. The contention was that since this agreement had been arrived at, no action could be taken by the management against the workmen and the inquiry was therefore not sustainable in law. 14. The so-called agreement is on a piece of paper where the following points were scribbled : 1. Brother-in-law of S.P. Pathak. Tec Grade-1 one son injured hospitalised, one son expired. 2. Service one family member of the expired. 3. Transfer of B.P. Thakur and N.S. Chaudhary and we will enquire their1 conduct. 4. 14. The so-called agreement is on a piece of paper where the following points were scribbled : 1. Brother-in-law of S.P. Pathak. Tec Grade-1 one son injured hospitalised, one son expired. 2. Service one family member of the expired. 3. Transfer of B.P. Thakur and N.S. Chaudhary and we will enquire their1 conduct. 4. Welfare cause meeting once a month. 5. A. No action against any employee. 5. B. School bus will go to temporary town ship 6. Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) compensation in death to children It was even not signed by the workmen. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the workmen for the following reasons: 19. The piece of paper did not bear the signature of anyone else except of Mr. R.D. Gupta, Director Personnel, It is not having signatures of the workmen or any AR of the Union. Scribbling of some points on a piece of paper cannot be a settlement is the eyes of law. To arrive at a binding settlement, the procedure as prescribed under Industrial Disputes Act has to be followed. In Workmen of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. The Management of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 1851 , Supreme Court observed that though a' settlement should not be brushed aside on technical grounds but in order to see whether the settlement is valid or not the pre requisite has to be satisfied that it is a settlement as contemplated by the statute and the Rules, framed therefore. A settlement which is not strictly in accordance it the statutory rules and does not come under the definition of settlement given in Section 2(p) of the industrial Disputes Act and shall not bind the parties u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Keltron Controls Vs. The Workmen of Keltron Controls, (2004) 101 FLR 49 Kerala High Court observed that in order to be a 'settlement' as defined u/s 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement otherwise during conciliation proceedings should have been in Form H and a copy of the same should have been sent to the Government and the conciliation officer, jointly by the employer and the employees. The non-compliance of the statutory requirements would render such settlement unenforceable by law. 20. In consider that giving recognition to a settlement as 'relied upon by the respondent is fraught with dangers. The non-compliance of the statutory requirements would render such settlement unenforceable by law. 20. In consider that giving recognition to a settlement as 'relied upon by the respondent is fraught with dangers. In such a settlement is recognised then the management can enter into such settlement by catching hold of any four employees and state the terms agreed on a piece of paper and same are signed by one of the managers or Directors of the management and announce it as a binding settlement arrived at between the workman and the management irrespective of the fact that the settlement involved the future of a large number of workmen. In order to protect the interest of the workmen the law as laid down a procedure to be followed for making a settlement binding. I consider unless the provisions of the Act and rules are not followed and copies of the settlement arrived at between the representatives of the union and the management are not forwarded to conciliation officer and the appropriate Government, a settlement cannot be binding on either of the parties. The settlement relied upon by the respondent/workmen is no settlement in the eyes of law. 15. We do not find any error in the above finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the so-called settlement relied upon by the workmen cannot be called a legal settlement. 16. In the result, we find no substance in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.