JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (a) That Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the award of the Hon'ble Labour Court at Annexure - B or to issue any other appropriate directions or orders for quashing the impugned award of the Hon'ble Labour Court dated 27.10.1993 at Annexure - B. (b) That Your Lordship be pleased to declare and hold that the workmen involved in the Reference are entitled for reinstatement with full back wages from the date the respondent No. 2 started its functioning i.e. 01.06.1982. (c) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the Records of the case from the Hon'ble Labour Court in Reference L.C.K. No. 3 of 1983 from the Hon'ble Labour Court, Kalol, District Mehsana. (d) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct respondent No. 2 to give employment to the present petitioners within the period of three months on temporary basis; 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the General Secretary of Gujarat Audyogik Kamdar Sangathan who has represented the case on behalf of 27 workers involved in the industrial dispute. The workers involved in the present petition were working with respondent No. 1 but as respondent No. 1 was not paying minimum wages to the workers and as statutory benefits were denied to the workers, the workers have organized labours and at the instance of present petitioner raised certain demands for implementation of statutory provisions under different labour laws. The parties were heard at length in the Office of the Labour Commissioner and as the settlement was not possible, appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for the purpose of adjudication. The said dispute was registered as Reference L.C.A. No. 156 of 1981. During the pendency of Reference, respondent No. 1 has closed down the Company. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 2 has purchased the machinery and factory of respondent No. 1 and has started manufacturing activity at the same place and the production material was also same. The said dispute was registered as Reference L.C.A. No. 156 of 1981. During the pendency of Reference, respondent No. 1 has closed down the Company. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 2 has purchased the machinery and factory of respondent No. 1 and has started manufacturing activity at the same place and the production material was also same. It is submitted that in Reference LCA No. 156 of 1981, the parties have entered into settlement on 14.08.1981 and in pursuance of the said terms of settlement Labour Court passed the award on 17.08.1981. In the terms of settlement, it was categorically stated in para 8 that in case of transfer of machinery or business or transfer of business either by way of sale or by any other mode, in that case, the respondent has to give priority to the present petitioners in the matter of giving employment and for that purpose, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to inform the petitioners accordingly. It is alleged that the present respondents have failed to observe the agreed conditions and the Labour Court surprisingly without reading the terms of settlement in its true spirit for certain unknown reasons has discarded the claim of the present petitioners and employment to the workers was refused. The petitioner being aggrieved with the findings given by the Labour Court has preferred present petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the settlement at Annexure A was signed by respondent No. 1 and therefore, it was within the knowledge of respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the present petitioners and it was for respondent No. 1 to persuade respondent No. 2. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 acted in collusion and they took inconsistent plea before the Labour Court and subsequently respondent No. 1 refused to accept liability with regard to giving employment to the present petitioners. It is submitted that by any stretch of imagination there is non compliance of the terms of settlement and the respondents have committed breach of settlement and unfortunately Labour Court has not appreciated clause of 8 of settlement in its true spirit. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 and 2 have acted in collusion in order to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate claim of employment. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 and 2 have acted in collusion in order to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate claim of employment. It is submitted that conclusions arrived by the Labour Court are not supported by evidence on record and findings of Labour Court are perverse in nature. In view of above, it is submitted that the award passed by Labour Court is bad in law and it is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner at length. 5. The Labour Court has passed the award and rejected the Reference after considering oral and documentary evidence on record. The Labour Court has discussed the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to breach of Settlement at para 13 which reads as under: Looking to the facts of this case, the opponent No. 1 compelled to close the company due to weak financial position in this dispute. The labourers raised industrial on closure of the mill. Discussion of compromise between opponent No. 1 and the Union of concerned workers took place in order to decide this industrial dispute and accordingly the compromise Exh.71 was executed u/s 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act and so the conditions of compromise are binding to the persons who have made signatures. The opponent No. 2 was not the signatory in the compromise and at the time of compromise, the existence of opponent institution No. 1 Company is not raised in this reference or the existence of the said institution company has not come into force. In the aforesaid circumstances, the conditions of aforesaid compromise are not binding to opponent No. 2 in any manner and therefore, this reference is not maintainable in law and is labile to be set aide. Upon reading the conditions of compromise Exh.71, it is transpired that the concerned labourers have appeared to be relieved by tendering resignation ager taking legal dues from opponent No. 1. In view of this, the question of granting relief for reinstatement does not arise under the provisions of law Clause 8 and 9 in connection therewith in compromise are very material so the concerned labouerrs have not mentioned clause 9 at any where. In view of this, the question of granting relief for reinstatement does not arise under the provisions of law Clause 8 and 9 in connection therewith in compromise are very material so the concerned labouerrs have not mentioned clause 9 at any where. Upon reading the conditions of clause 8 and 9, it is clearly proved that all the previous agreements were required to be applied, if the opponent No. 1, who was a signatory in this compromise or its any partner restarts the company. It was clearly decided that this or other agreement was not to be applied, if any other party restarts the company. It is also a fact that the proprietor or partner of opponent No. 1 is not directly or indirectly connected with opponent No. 2 - Tejal Paper Factory Pvt. Ltd. The labourers have admitted in their evidence and cross examination and therefore, any conditions of compromise Exh.71 are not binding in any way to opponent No. 2. Moreover, the opponent No. 2 has stated in evidence that when the closed factory of opponent No. 1 was taken over, they were specifically conveyed that the concerned labourers are discharged by tendering resignation and therefore, the questions of reinstatement in service does not arise. In support of this, the opponent No. 1 has submitted the reply Exh.9 to the statement of demand wherein it is clearly mentioned that as opponent No. 2 is new management, the opponent No. 1 cannot state to opponent No. 2 for reinstatement of original labourers. Not only this but it also depends on discretion of new management. It is proved that the responsibility of labourers was not conferred at the time of handing over management to opponent No. 2. So their responsibility prior to 05.03.1982 does not arise. So the dispute of concerned labourers prior to 05.03.1982 with opponent No. 1 is not maintainable in law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5.1. Important aspect with respect to clause 8 of settlement is also discussed by the Labour Court at para 26 which reads as under: In this case, the compromise which is taken place between opponent No. 1 Kalyan Paper Board Mill and Union is produced vide Exh.71. 5.1. Important aspect with respect to clause 8 of settlement is also discussed by the Labour Court at para 26 which reads as under: In this case, the compromise which is taken place between opponent No. 1 Kalyan Paper Board Mill and Union is produced vide Exh.71. The clause 8 and 9 of this compromise are as under: Clause 8 - If the first party transfers or sales its company and machinery to another party or itself restarts or itself gets restarted, the first preference will be given for joining duty to the labourers of second party which are in Schedule 'A' and 'A(1)' and when the company is started, they will be informed by letter. Clause 9 - When any partner of the company of first party restarts the company or get restarted, both the parties shall follow this and all previous agreement. Upon reading these two clauses together, it seems that when the opponent No. 1 - Kalyan Paper Board Mill or any any partner of the company restarts the company, the conditions of compromise agreement were required to be applied and when the outsider person starts, the condition of the agreement were not required to be applied. The concerned labourers state in evidence that the proprietor of opponent No. 1 or any partner is not the partner in opponent No. 1 I.e. in Tejal Paper Mill. Thus, the owner or any partner of opponent No. 1 is not partner in opponent No. 2. So, looking to clause 8 and 9 of compromise, the compromise agreement Exh.71 is not binding to opponent No. 2 i.e. to the Tejal Paper Mill. 6. Considering the findings given by the Labour Court, in my opinion, it appears that there is no illegality committed by the Labour Court in dismissing the reference. There is nothing on record to show that the settlement is binding to new purchaser. The findings given by Labour Court is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. If at all there is any settlement between the parties it will be open for the petitioner to file appropriate case against original owner. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule discharged.