JUDGMENT 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether under Section 18(3) read with Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act' for short), read with Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, a settlement arrived at between the parties outside the conciliation proceedings would be binding on the subsequent purchaser of the factory? 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.4497 of 1994 and the award of the Labour Court dated 27.10.1993 in Reference (LCK) No.3 of 1983. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant-petitioner is the General Secretary of the Union, who on behalf of 27 workers, had raised an Industrial dispute that the respondents were not paying minimum wages to the workers and the statutory benefits were also been denied to the workers. The Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that settlement was possible and referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, which was registered as Reference LCA No.156 of 1981. During the pendency of the Reference, respondent No.1-M/s. Kalyan Paper & Board Mills closed down the Company and respondent No.2-Company, namely, Tejal Paper Factory Pvt.Ltd., purchased the machinery and factory. In Reference LCA 156 of 1981, the parties had entered into a settlement on 14.8.1981 and in pursuance of the terms of the settlement, the Labour Court passed the award dated 17.8.1981. It was mentioned in Clause 8 of the settlement that in case of transfer of machinery or business either by way of sale or any other mode the respondent would give priority in the matter of giving employment to the appellants and the respondents were under a duty to inform the appellants about the sale. Since the respondents did not comply with the terms of the settlement, the appellants filed the instant writ petition before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr.R.V.Desai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Bhavesh V.Chokshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 5. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 or his authorised signatory had not signed the settlement dated 14.8.1981. Therefore, the only question which was to be decided by the learned Single Judge was as to whether the settlement was binding on the subsequent purchaser or not. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 or his authorised signatory had not signed the settlement dated 14.8.1981. Therefore, the only question which was to be decided by the learned Single Judge was as to whether the settlement was binding on the subsequent purchaser or not. The learned Single Judge, after considering the settlement, recorded a finding that the settlement was not signed by the purchaser and therefore, the settlement would not be binding on the new purchaser of the factory and machines. The Labour Court has rightly dismissed the reference by order dated 27.10.1993 and the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court that the settlement was not binding on the subsequent purchaser of the factory and machines. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 18(3) of the ID Act, which is extracted below: “18. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 18(3) of the ID Act, which is extracted below: “18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.- xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section 3(A) of section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on-- (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.” On the strength of Section 18(3) read with Section 2(p) of the Act, the learned counsel has urged that the settlement could be arrived either during the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise and even if the settlement had been arrived at between the parties, that is to say, not in conciliation proceedings, even then, it would be binding on the subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on Section 2(p) of the ID Act reads as under:- “2(p) “Settlement” means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.” The question raised by learned counsel for the appellant came up for consideration before the Apex Court in M/s.Tata Chemicals vs. The Workmen Repre-sented by Chemicals Kamdar Sangh, (1978) 3 SCC 42 , the Apex Court, after extracting Section 18 of the ID Act held in para 13 as under: “13. A bare perusal of the above quoted section would show that whereas a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement, a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding under the Act is binding not only on the parties to the industrial dispute but also on other persons specified in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act.” 7. From the aforesaid view taken by the Apex Court, it is clear that the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding is binding only to the parties to the settlement, but it would not be binding on other parties or subsequent purchaser of the factory and machines if he is not a signatory to the settlement. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Amalgamated Electricity Co.Ltd. and others, 2001 LAB I.C. 2140, wherein it has been held that if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and reinstatement is directed by the Labour Court, in that case, even if the Electricity Company has been taken over by another State Electricity Board, the award has to be implemented by the successor Company. This decision would not apply to the facts of the instant case as it was not a case where Section 18(3) and Section 2(p) were under consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 which provides that on settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise shall be in Form XVI, which is appended to the Rules. It provides that the memorandum of settlement has to be signed by the parties, witnesses and the conciliation Officer. Rule 62 of the aforesaid Rules is extracted below: “62. Memorandum of settlement. (1) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise, shall be in Form XVI. (2) The settlement shall be signed by -- (a) in the case of an employer, by the employer himself, or by his authorised agent, or where the employer is an incorporated company or other body corporate, by the agent, manager or other principal officer of such company or body; (b) in the case of workmen, either by the President or Secretary or such other officer of a trade union of the workmen as may be authorised by the Executive Committee of the Union in this behalf, or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose; (c) in the case of an individual workman having an industrial dispute under sec.2-A, by the workman himself. (3) Where a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer or the Board, as the case may be, shall send a report thereof the Statement Government together with the memorandum of settlement signed by the parties to the disputes. (4) Where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and his workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer or Board, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to The Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Education and Labour Department, Ahmedabad, the Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad and the Conciliation Officer concerned.” 9. In view of the aforesaid Rules read with Form XVI, it is apparent that memorandum of settlement has to be signed by the parties and the witnesses, and it has to be signed by the Conciliation Officer if the benefit of Section 18(3) read with Section 2(p), has to be claimed by the appellants. Undisputedly, the settlement does not contain the signatures of the Conciliation Officer. Therefore, while entering into the settlement, provisions of Rule 62 were not complied by the parties to the settlement. Hence, benefit under Section 18(3) read with Section 2(p) would not be available to the appellants. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge that settlement was arrived at between the parties outside the conciliation proceedings and was not signed by respondent No.2-M/s.Tejal Paper Factory Pvt.Ltd., the settlement would not binding on respondent No.2. we do not find any merits in this appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed summarily. 11. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, no orders are required to be passed on the Civil Application for stay and it stands dismissed.