Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners Society, challenging the orders passed by the 1st respondent allowing the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by quantifying the amount payable by the petitioner to the respondents with interest. 2. The 2nd respondents in W.P.No.12140 of 2003 has been working as Night Watchman and in W.P.No.12141 of 2003 has been working as a Jewel Appraiser with the petitioner. There was a settlement between the 2nd respondents and the Union under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 16.03.1994. After the said settlement, another settlement was arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 31.07.1999. Based upon the above said two settlements, the 2nd respondent in both the writ petitions herein approached the Labour Court, Salem, the 1st respondent herein seeking payment under Section 33C(2) of the Payment of Industrial Disputes Act. The said application was allowed by the 1st respondent and challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in granting the relief to the 2nd respondent in both the writ petitions without considering the fact that their appointments were irregular and contrary to the sanctioned cadre strength. The learned counsel further submitted that the contesting respondents are yet to be regularised and therefore they being temporary employees and there employment being irregular, the orders passed by the Labour court will have to be set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that the settlements will cover only to the permanent employees and not the temporary employees like the 2nd respondents herein who have been appointed contrary to the rules. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the similar appointments made contrary to Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 have been held to be bad by the Division Bench of this Honble Court in the judgment reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 [L.JUSTINE AND ANOTHER v. THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHENNAI-10 AND TWO OTHERS], which was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112 [A.UMARANI v. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS]. Therefore the learned counsel submitted that the writ petition will have to be allowed. 5. Therefore the learned counsel submitted that the writ petition will have to be allowed. 5. Heard Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and none appeared for the respondents. 6. The Labour Court has correctly held that the contesting respondents herein are not entitled for making a claim based upon the settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was also of the view that in as much as the contesting respondents herein are temporary employees, the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to them. However, the Labour Court has committed an error in holding that the said settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act is applicable to the contesting respondents. From the perusal of the records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is made clear that till today the contesting respondents herein have not been confirmed and their appointments have not been regularised. The initial appointments made were also contrary to the cadre strength. Therefore in the absence of any legal right, the Labour Court ought not to have granted the relief. 7. The Labour Court has also committed a factual error in holding that the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.12141 of 2003 has become a regular employee. In as much as the initial appointment itself is contrary to the cadre strength and the appointments are yet to be approved by the competent authority, the contesting respondents are not entitled to invoke the provisions contained under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also not in dispute that the settlement entered under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act itself is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. This Court in the judgment referred above has held that if the settlement is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules contained therein particularly Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the same will not have any binding effect. 8. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the 1st respondent are liable to be set aside and accordingly the same are set aside. These writ petitions are allowed. No costs.