Judgment :- 1. Both the writ petitions challenges the same award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.56 of 1997 dated 28.1.2002. When the Writ Petition in W.P.No.13934 of the year 2008 came up before this Court, on noticing that the Writ Petition filed by the Management is still pending before this Court, this Court directed the Registry to circulate the bundle relating to the earlier writ petition - W.P.No.34971 of 2002, to be heard along with this writ petition. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were listed together and a common order is passed. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.13934 of 2008/ workman Mr.K.H.Mohanraj is also present before this Court. The writ petition in W.P.No.13934 of 2008 is filed by the workman challenging the award in relation to Labour Court declining to grant any relief and ordering payment of Rs.600/- for each month of service from July, 1994 to February, 1996, and denying him the relief of reinstatement. The Labour Court held that relating to non-employment it was found it is not a case of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is a case of workman stopping himself away from training and therefore he is not entitled for any relief in respect of his non-employment. But however, considering that since the Management refused to consider for any reemployment, on humanitarian basis, and also his permanent disability, the Labour Court made a recommendation that his stipend for the period from July, 1994 to February, 19996 at the rate of RS.600/- has be paid and it also directed that a sum of Rs.25,000/-could be given as exgratia. The writ petition in W.P.No.34971 of 2002 filed by the Management and admitted by this Court on 9.9.2002. As at that time the very same workman had filed similar writ petition in W.P.No.17339 of 2002 this Court directed both the writ petitions have to be heard together. During the pendency of the writ petitions, it transpires that the Management and workman-Mohanraj has entered into settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 23.08.2004. Under the terms of settlement, the workman agreed not to press his writ petition in W.P.No.17339 of 2002 and it was also agreed that the workman would be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in full and final settlement of the award in I.D.No.56 of 1997. Under the terms of settlement, the workman agreed not to press his writ petition in W.P.No.17339 of 2002 and it was also agreed that the workman would be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in full and final settlement of the award in I.D.No.56 of 1997. Accepting the said amount he agreed that he will not claim any further amount. Pursuant to the settlement, Management paid Rs.20,000/-, which was received by the workman by a stamped receipt executed on 23.8.2004 and the amount was paid by way of cheque on 23.8.2004 drawn on State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Chennai-2. The workman also entered into a joint memo dated 23.8.2004 agreeing to submit the same before this Court in W.P.No.34971 of 2002 for recording compromise between the parties. For reasons best known, compromise was not recorded and the matter was kept pending. In the meanwhile the writ petition filed by the workman in W.P.No.17339 of 2002 came up for hearing on 14.6.2006. At that time, as there was no representation on the side of workman, this Court heard the submission made by the learned counsel for Management and on noticing that the parties have entered into settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it held that the relief sought for by the workman cannot be granted and the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The said order dated 14.6.2006 had become final as no attempt was made either to seek for clarification or a review was filed to set aside such exparte observation. Curiously the workman has come up with second writ petition for the very same relief in W.P.No.13934 of 2008 notwithstanding that his earlier writ petition for the same relief was dismissed by this Court. In the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, a reference was made to W.P.No.17339 of 2002 and the outcome of the said writ petition, the fact of signing the settlement under Section 18(1) and writ petition being dismissed as infructuous is also set out therein. It is not clear notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition how the petitioner can file second writ petition for the very same relief. It is not clear notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition how the petitioner can file second writ petition for the very same relief. In the grounds filed in support of the writ petition -W.P.No.13934 of 2008, it was contended by him that the settlement was not arrived at between the parties for equally bargaining power and the settlement was not valid as it was arrived by force, threat and undue influence. If that is so the petitioner could have made an attempt to reopen W.P.No.17339 of 2002 and not to file another writ petition challenging the same award but omit to challenge the settlement signed between him and the Management dated 23.8.2004. It must be noted that at the time when the settlement was signed the workman was not in the employment of the company and therefore in the absence of petitioner revealing as to how threat and force was used to obtain signature, the Court cannot go into such contentious issues. Besides it must be noted that the petitioner after having signed settlement has also received the amount referred to in the settlement by way of cheque and also encashed cheque. Apart from this, learned judge of this Court has taken note of the said settlement while disposing of W.P.No.17339 of 2002 on 14.6.2006. Therefore at that time or any time later the workman should have projected such grievance before this Court and should have convinced this Court regarding the invalidity of the said said settlement. Even today there is no attack on the said settlement except for a collateral attack by making averments, which are not supported by any records. Therefore, when the matter came up today, this Court directed the workman - Mr.K.H.Mohanraj to verify whether the signature found in the settlement dated 23.8.2004, the stamped receipt dated 23.8.2004 and the joint memo dated 23.8.2004 as that of his. The workman fairly accepted that it was his signature. If he has grievance regarding relief granted by the Labour Court he should have pursued the remedy and brought the writ petition to a logical end. He cannot enter into settlement and after making the Management to part with certain amount and allowing his case to be dismissed and on the very same ground cannot set up another writ petition. Under the said circumstances, W.P.No.34971 of 2002 will stand dismissed. He cannot enter into settlement and after making the Management to part with certain amount and allowing his case to be dismissed and on the very same ground cannot set up another writ petition. Under the said circumstances, W.P.No.34971 of 2002 will stand dismissed. In the light of the memorandum of settlement reached between the parties and also joint memo filed before this Court W.P.No.13934 of 2008 is not maintainable as it is barred by res judicata in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17339 of 2002 dated 14.6.2006 and that writ petition also stands dismissed. One of the terms of settlement between the parties is that the Management was permitted to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the Labour Court. However, Mr.John, learned counsel appearing for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., on behalf of Management on instructions fairly suggests on goodwill that the amount in deposit with Labour Court can be withdrawn by the workman notwithstanding the fact that under the terms of settlement the Management was to withdraw the amount. This gesture of the Management is appreciated and therefore it is hereby directed notwithstanding the terms of settlement dated 23.8.2004 and on the basis of the undertaking given by the counsel for Management, the amount of Rs.20,000/- lying in deposit with the Labour Court shall be withdrawn by the workman -K.H.Mohanraj on production of order of this court. However, there is no order as to costs.