Judgment :- 1. These appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.25280/2001 being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2006, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to grant the prayer to quash Annexure – “A” in so far as it says that the benefit of weightage for service is limited to those on the rolls of the establishment on the date of signing the settlement. 2. The appellants herein filed W.P.No.25280/2001 averring that petitioner Nos.2 to 13 are the ex-employees of M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited and the first petitioner is the platform of M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited Ex-Employees Association. The main contention of the petitioners in the Writ Petition is that the petitioners, who were the workmen under the regular rolls of the respondents – company as on 01.01.1997 and continue to be on the rolls of the company on the date of signing the settlement. They are the members of the union, who represented them in settling the matter and the settlement was arrived at. However, the petitioners are aggrieved only by the clause in the agreement that the weightage of service was limited to those on the rolls of the establishment ofn the date of signing the settlement and on the date of filing the petitioners are retired from the service having attained the age of superannuation and therefore the Writ Petition was filed challenging the said clause in the final settlement arrived at by the Union and the Management contending that though the petitioners were the members of the Union, which entered the settlement with the Management, the interest of the petitioners has not been safeguarded as grant of weightage is limited to the persons. who are in service as on the date of the settlement (settlement dated 20.12.2000) and therefore they sought for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Annexure – “A” in so far as it says that the benefit of weightage for service is limited to those on the rolls of the establishment on the date of signing the settlement and to hold that the petitioners, who are already retired prior to the date of signing the settlement are also entitled to the amount by way of service weightage as the settlement is effective from 01.01.1997 and to pass such other order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. 3. The petition was resisted by the respondents. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after scrutinizing the material on record, held that admittedly settlement has been arrived at between the Union of which the petitioners were the members and the Management on 20.12.2000 and the settlement in question is arrived at under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that the 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 10-A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, it has become enforceable, shall be binding on all parties to industrial dispute and where one of the parties to the dispute is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, or as the case may be to which the dispute relates on the date of dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part of are bound by it and in view of the admitted facts that the petitioners are the members of the recognized trade unions, which entered into the settlement with the Management, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the said settlement only in so far as it relates to a particular clause, herein the benefit of weightage is not extended to them as on the date of signing of the agreement, i.e., 20.12.2000 and if at all they have any grievance, it is open to them to challenge the award on any of ground available to them by raising an industrial dispute and no relief can be granted based on the said settlement in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.01.2006, these appeals are filed by the writ petitioners. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3. The other respondents though served with the notice, have not chosen to appear before this Court, as they were only formal parties. 5. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3. The other respondents though served with the notice, have not chosen to appear before this Court, as they were only formal parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge was not at all justified in holding that the appellants should raise industrial dispute and work out his remedy as the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2001 and was admitted and considered in the year 2006 and the grievance of the appellants is only regarding the application of provisions regarding grant of weightage only to the employees who are on the rolls of the establishment on the date of signing the settlement i.e., 20.12.2000, which can be decided in the Writ Petition and therefore the learned Single Judge is not justified in dismissing the writ Petition. It is further submitted that the appellants in these appeals do not dispute that they were the members of the union and the settlement is binding on them. However, their grievance is only in respect of a particular clause in the agreement. His contention is that since the other benefits were made applicable from 01.01.1997, the employees who are on the role as on 01.01.1997 ought to have been granted the weightage. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that since the settlement has been arrived at under Sections 12 and 18 of the Act, the same is not binding; upon the appellants and only a clause in the agreement,. Having accepted the other benefits under the said settlement cannot be challenged in a Writ Petition and if at all they have any grievance in respect of any clause in the settlement, they must raise the industrial dispute through the union, which represented the appellants in arriving at the settlement. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that on relief can be granted in the Writ Petition having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the appellants. 8. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that on relief can be granted in the Writ Petition having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the appellants. 8. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the parties and scrutinized the material on record. The material on record would clearly show that the appellants were the members of the Union, which represented them in arriving at the settlement, which was signed on 20.12.2000, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the revision of pay scales, allowances and other fringe benefits, which has been granted under the settlement has been made available to the appellants, as the said clause was come into effect on 01.01.1997 and therefore they have accepted the settlement in so far as it relates to other benefits, which they have received under the settlement and their only grievance is weightage of service, which ought to have been granted in respect of the employees who are on the rolls as on 01.01.1997. 9. In view of the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the settlement is binding upon the appellants and it is not open to the appellants to challenge the portion of the settlement, i.e., particular clause in the settlement and to declare that the appellants are also entitled to weightage notwithstanding the clause in the settlement, cannot be granted in a Writ Petition as the same requires detailed investigation to the question of fact and the appellants have got effective remedy of raising a dispute before the Tribunal through the union to enter into settlement and therefore the finding of the learned Single Judge is justified. Mere fact that the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2001 and has been pending till the date of the order, i.e., on 03.01.2006 would not be a ground to grant the relief, which cannot be granted in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the delay is attributable to the appellants and not to anybody else. The appellants were represented by the union and their only remedy to challenge any provisions of law is through the union and no petition was maintainable. Despite the same, they have chosen to file the Writ Petition. The appellants were represented by the union and their only remedy to challenge any provisions of law is through the union and no petition was maintainable. Despite the same, they have chosen to file the Writ Petition. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the learned Single Judge ought to have disposed of the petition on merits. 10. Accordingly we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and it does not call for interference in this intra Court appeals. However, it is open to the appellants to work out the remedy, in accordance with law, as per the observations of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly all the appeals are dismissed.