JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner in all these four Writ Petitions is three different management. In W.P.No.19002 of 2010, the challenge is to the common order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.Nos.10 and 11 of 2008 dated 5.4.2010. In W.P.No.19003 of 2010, the challenge is to the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.47 of 2008 dated 5.4.2010. These two Writ Petitions were admitted on 19.8.2010. Pending the Writ Petitions, this Court granted an interim stay. 2. Subsequently, the two different managements filed two other Writ Petitions. In W.P.No.19118 of 2010, the challenge is to the common order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.Nos.4, 5, 6 of 2008. In W.P.No.19119 of 2010, the challenge is to the common order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the very same Labour Court in C.P.Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 2008. The last two Writ Petitions were admitted on 20.8.2010. Pending those two Writ Petitions, this Court granted an interim stay. After notice on behalf of the workman, Mr.S.Saravanan had entered appearance. 3. In all the claim petitions for which the orders were made by the Labour Court on 5.4.2010, an identical issue was raised. It is the admitted case of both parties that the contesting respondents workmen were not workers of the petitioners management and they had also received bonus at the rate of 8.33% for the accounting year 2006=2008. Subsequently, for various reasons, they have tendered resignation, which was accepted by the management. After the contesting respondents left from the service of the management, there was a demand made by the Trade Union of ARC Retreading Company and other Unions, demanding incentive payment at the rate of 11.67% for the same accounting year. A Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was signed on 31.10.2007 between the union and the management agreeing 11.67% incentive payment for the said accounting year. The settlement itself, as can be seen from the document marked before the Labour Court, restricted number of workers, who are eligible to get payment under the said settlement. 4. The settlement signed under Section 18(1) in respect of Anamalai Engineering Company covered 14 workers and para 2 of the settlement also stated that the management expects extended cooperation by the employees in future. The settlement in respect of the 1st two Writ Petitions signed by the ARC Retreading Company Limited (Transports) covered only 8 workers. 4. The settlement signed under Section 18(1) in respect of Anamalai Engineering Company covered 14 workers and para 2 of the settlement also stated that the management expects extended cooperation by the employees in future. The settlement in respect of the 1st two Writ Petitions signed by the ARC Retreading Company Limited (Transports) covered only 8 workers. The settlement signed under Section 18(1) in respect of Nachimuthu Industrial Association (Transport) covered 17 workers. 5. Notwithstanding the settlements being restricted to satisfy number of workers and also signed under Section 18(1), the contesting respondents filed claim statements before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said claim statements were taken on file and assigned different numbers by the Labour Court. The claim made by the workmen was based upon the fact that the settlement relates to the year 2006-2007 and during the said accounting year, the workmen were also in service and therefore even though it is a settlement under Section 18(1), inasmuch as the incentive payment at the rate of 11.67% has been accepted, the workmen are also eligible for such claim. 6. On notice from the Labour Court, the contesting respondents filed counter statement stating that the claim petition under Section 33-C (2) is not maintainable, since the settlement does not cover the workmen in question. Even otherwise, the petitioner by filing a petition under Section 33-C (2) cannot extend the scope of the said settlement. Firstly, it was stated that the settlement was signed only for the workers, who are on service on the date of settlement and not for the persons, who have left service. 7. Before the Labour Court in respect of the claim statements, the workers have examined themselves and they also filed some documents including the settlement. On the side of the management, no evidence was let in. The Labour Court held that interpreting the term of the settlement filed as Ex.W.3, the court can direct the incentive payment to workers and therefore, the workmen are also eligible for incentive payment for the year 2006—2007. By the impugned orders dated 5.4.2010, the amounts were computed as per the claim made by the workmen and challenging these orders, the Writ Petition came to be filed as noted already. 8. By the impugned orders dated 5.4.2010, the amounts were computed as per the claim made by the workmen and challenging these orders, the Writ Petition came to be filed as noted already. 8. The contention raised by the management was that once the workers have resigned their service and left the service, there being no legal entitlement for them to get the benefit claimed, the court cannot extend the scope of the said settlement and even otherwise in the absence of any pre-existing right, the workmen cannot claim any amount much more. 9. The incentive payment itself is confined to class of workmen. The Labour Court's finding that they can interpret the settlement will arise only if the settlement gives benefits to all the case of the workmen. There is no scope for interpreting a clause of settlement. When that concession is not there, the Court in a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) cannot extend the scope of the said settlement. The contention raised by the management is well founded. In a petition under Section 33-C (2), there is no scope for the Labour Court to extend the coverage under the settlement. In the guise of interpreting such settlement, the court cannot direct amounts to be paid to the workmen. Further, the settlement only identifies number of workers and therefore, if at all the workmen have any right, they must raise a dispute with reference to their entitlement to get incentive payment as available to the other workers. 10. In the light of the same, all the Writ Petitions stand allowed. The impugned orders stand set aside. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.