Judgment 1. The writ petition is filed by the Trade Union, representing the workers of various estates operated by respondents 7 to 13, challenging the settlement signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 01.07.2011 between Respondents 7 to 13 on the one side representing the Management and Respondents 14 to 25, the Trade Unions representing the workers on the other side. 2. The petitioner claims that they represent 688 persons whose names are mentioned in the typed set. They are aggrieved by the settlement which took away the rights of the workers. The petitioner Union is more aggrieved by Clause 4 and Clause 5 of the settlement, which reads as follows:- "4.) It is agreed by the parties that subject to this settlement and the modification as per this settlement, the existing arrangements relating to Production Bonus, Work Tasks, payments towards Special Job Incentive and connected clauses including the periodicity of its enforcement shall continue to remain in force and be applicable. 5.) In respect of the period between 15.06.2008 to 31.05.2011, it is specifically agreed between the parties that the wage scheme implemented under the terms of the arrangements dated 2.9.2008, 19.12.2008, 27.4.2009 and 30.4.2009 in respect of workers and dated 4.11.2008 and 30.04.2009 in respect of Supervisors, skilled and non-staff categories, does not involve or give rise to any claim or proceeding by any one, statutory or otherwise relating to the quantum of wages paid during this period or the fringe benefits or any other benefits payable on any component." 3. The petitioner Union sent a representation on 29.08.2011 and thereafter filed the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner Union was that the State Government fixed minimum wages in respect of Plantation vide G.O.(2D)No.34, Labour and Employment, dated 15.06.2008. By the said notification, not only minimum wages were fixed in respect of Tea Plantations but Dearness Allowance both fixed as well as variable was also fixed. The said notification was challenged by the Management who are contesting respondents herein in various writ petitions being W.P.No.14930 of 2008 and batch cases. This Court by order dated 26.08.2008 dismissed the miscellaneous applications by passing a detailed order. Subsequent to the dismissal of the interim order, the Management neither challenged the said order nor brought up the main writ petitions for final disposal. This Court by order dated 26.08.2008 dismissed the miscellaneous applications by passing a detailed order. Subsequent to the dismissal of the interim order, the Management neither challenged the said order nor brought up the main writ petitions for final disposal. But on the other hand started entering into settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act. 4. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour brought to the notice of Plantation owners that the wages agreed to between the Management and the workers were less than the minimum rates of wages and the settlement signed by them are not in conformity with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Notwithstanding the same, they started entering into settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act. 5. In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Plantation filed suo motu proceedings claiming difference in wages between what was actually paid and the minimum wages notification in respect of various workers. When those orders of the minimum wages authority was challenged before this Court, only a conditional stay order was granted. Therefore, the Management in order to get over their liability to pay the minimum wage as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act entered into a settlement first under Section 18(1) and thereafter under Section 12(3) dated 01.07.2011, which is impugned herein as noted already. 6. The grievance of the petitioner Union was once the workers are agreeable to the impugned 12(3) settlement, that settlement will not give rise to any claim or proceeding by any one, statutory or otherwise relating to the quantum of wages paid during the period or the fringe benefits or any other benefits payable on any component and it will totally take away the statutory benefits agreed to the workman for the period from 15.06.2008 to 30.05.2011 and hence, the settlement should be abrogated. 7. The writ petition was admitted on 30.09.2011. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an ex parte interim stay. Subsequently, when vacate stay application was filed, this Court by an order dated 01.12.2011 dismissed the stay application and allowed the vacate stay application and directed the main writ petition to be listed for final hearing. This Court also directed the original file to be produced by the first respondent State Government. Accordingly, original file was also produced for perusal by this Court. 8. This Court also directed the original file to be produced by the first respondent State Government. Accordingly, original file was also produced for perusal by this Court. 8. On notice from this Court, on behalf of contesting respondents, a common counter affidavit was filed. The locus standi of the petitioner was questioned by stating that the petitioner Union was started only in the year 2010 and it was not recognised by any Management. The workman represented by some of the contesting Trade Unions also stated that their Unions are empowered to and legally competent to espouse the cause of the workman. The settlement was valid. The Management in their common counter affidavit dated 17.03.2012 stated that the settlement is valid in law and has been signed by proper parties. The Inspector of Plantations has also launched prosecution against the Managers for non- implementing the minimum wages notification. The complaint made was forwarded for further investigation by the Inspector of Plantations. 9. In the common counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, in paragraph 15, it was averred as follows:- "15.) ....It is also submitted that clause (5) of the 12(3) settlement cannot deprive the power given to the Inspector of Plantations under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to file claim petitions whenever wages paid are below the rates of minimum wages. This clause of the 12(3) settlement does not bind anybody as 'contracting out' of any rights is null and void under Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act. The Inspectors can file claim petitions for the period from 15.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 if the management failed to implement the G.O.2(D)No.34, Labour and Employment Department, dated 15.06.2008. This clause has no restrictions on the actions taken by the enforcement officials for the lesser payment of minimum rates of wages for the period from 15.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 under the Minimum Wages Act." 10. In the light of the above, it has to be seen whether the petitioner's writ petition is maintainable. The petitioner while challenging a settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act did not seek for declaration that it is only binding on the parties to the dispute and not others. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. The petitioner while challenging a settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act did not seek for declaration that it is only binding on the parties to the dispute and not others. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Secondly, in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, it is for the petitioner to approach the Minimum Wages Authority claiming the difference in wages if any. When that remedy is open to the petitioner Union, it is unnecessary for them to challenge the same. As and when any orders are passed by the Minimum Wages authority on a complaint made by either the petitioner Union or Inspector of Plantation or by the aggrieved workman, it is time enough for this Court to review the same. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned settlement. 11. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. This will not dis-entitle the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority.