JUDGMENT S.K.Mishra, J. In this writ application the petitioner-Gokul Ch.Das, prays to quash Annexure-1, which is the settlement arrived at between the Management and the petitioner, wherein he has allegedly given up his right to claim the gratuity. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk at Talcher Colliery and successfully discharged his duties. He was promoted to the post of Senior Cashier w.e.f. 18.3.1971. Basing on the F.I.R. lodged by the Colliery Manager on 23.2.1979 a criminal case, vide G.R. Case No.66 of 1979, was initiated against the petitioner for misappropriation of coal royalty amounting to Rs.64,737/-and the said case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talacher. The petitioner has been acquitted in the said case. It is alleged by the petitioner that during pendency of the said case, opposite party no.3 has taken statement forcibly at midnight on 23.2.1979 that he has misappropriated coal royalty amounting to Rs.64,737/-which he has received by way of cheque and encashed the same on 29.1.1979 and, accordingly, the case was tried under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. Immediately thereafter a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on the next day i.e. on 24.2.1979 he had suspended from his service. After suspension the petitioner has received subsistence allowance till 14.12.1979 pending Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him by opposite party no.3. Opposite party no.3 has framed charges on 21.3.1979 and directed the petitioner to submit explanation within seven days and the petitioner has received the said notice after 21.3.1979. Thereafter the Departmental Proceeding proceeded and it is alleged by the petitioner that in gross violation of principles of natural justice he was found guilty, but he was acquitted by the criminal court. 3. It transpires from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties that on 8.8.1996 there was a settlement between the parties in terms of Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957(in short “Rules, 1957”) in Form H, as appended to the schedule, wherein the petitioner had agreed that he will not be entitled to nor he will claim gratuity for his past service till re-instatement. He will also not be entitled to gratuity from the date of his joining duties till 3.11.1998, i.e. the date of superannuation. On the basis of this statement, it is contended by the opposite parties that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity as claimed. He will also not be entitled to gratuity from the date of his joining duties till 3.11.1998, i.e. the date of superannuation. On the basis of this statement, it is contended by the opposite parties that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity as claimed. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the reported case of Cooperative Store Ltd. And Ved Prakash Bhambri; 1 L.L.J 1990, page-119, wherein the Delhi High Court has held that Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and Form H are statutory provisions which have to be given full effect before the settlement could be considered valid. Even though the settlement has not been arrived at during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, yet the settlement has to be in accordance with the statutory provisions before it can be held to be valid. Settlement between the individual workman and the management must be strictly in compliance with the rules. ‘Settlement’ has been clearly defined under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same has to be in accordance with the statutory provisions. If there is no settlement as contemplated in the statute and the rules made there under, the same will not be binding on the parties under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that the ratio decided is squarely applicable to the case in hand. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows:- “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 authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.” 4. Rule 58 of the Rules, 1957 provides for Memorandum of settlement. For ready reference, the same is quoted below:- “58. Memorandum of settlement. Rule 58 of the Rules, 1957 provides for Memorandum of settlement. For ready reference, the same is quoted below:- “58. Memorandum of settlement. – (1) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise, shall be in Form H. (2)The settlement shall be signed by – (a) in the case of an employer, by the employer himself, or by his authorized agent, or when the employer is an incorporated company of other body corporate, by the agent, manager or other principal officer of the corporation; (b)in the case of the workmen, by any officer of a trade union of the workmen or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorized in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose; (c) in the case of the workman is an industrial dispute under section 2-A of the Act, by the workman concerned. Explanation – In this rule “officer” means any of the following officers, namely:- (a) the President; (b) the Vice-President; (c) the Secretary (including the General Secretary); (d) a Joint Secretary; (e) any other officer of the trade union authorized in this behalf by the President and Secretary of the Union. (3) Where a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding the Conciliation Officer shall send a report thereof to the Central Government together with a copy of the memorandum of settlement signed by the parties to the dispute. (4) Where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and his workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding before a Board or a Conciliation Officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Central Government, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) concerned.” 5. In this case, admittedly, the settlement is not arrived at in course of a conciliation proceeding but the question arise whether Annexure-1 is in consonance with Form H read with Rule 58 of the Rules, 1957. It is seen from the record itself that the settlement has been signed by the petitioner, the General Manager and four witnesses. It is further apparent from the record that the copy of the memorandum of settlement has not been sent to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). It is seen from the record itself that the settlement has been signed by the petitioner, the General Manager and four witnesses. It is further apparent from the record that the copy of the memorandum of settlement has not been sent to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). It is, therefore, not in consonance with Rule 58 of the Rules, 1957 read with Form H of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and hence the same cannot be given any weightage. 6. It is also seen that the settlement arrived at between the parties is not in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short “Gratuity Act”). Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act provides for the case where the employer can withheld the gratuity of an employee. It reads as follows: “Section 4. xx xx xx xx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), - (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” 7. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal charges levelled against him by the court of competent criminal jurisdiction. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the services of the employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part and, accordingly, requirements of Subsection (6) of the Section 4 of the Gratuity Act are not fulfilled and accordingly it is held that the petitioner cannot be denied for payment of gratuity only because a criminal case was initiated against him. 8. 8. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the writ application and direct the legal heirs of the petitioner, who have been substituted in this writ application, to file a representation before the General Manager, Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd., Talcher Area, Angul, opposite party no.3, for calculation of the gratuity amount of the petitioner-Late Gokul Ch. Das. If such a representation is filed, opposite party no.3 shall calculate the gratuity amount of the petitioner-Late Gokul Ch.Das and disburse the same to his legal heirs within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the legal heirs of the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this judgment. Sd/- S.K.Mishra, J PRADIP MOHANTY, J. I agree. Sd/- Pradip Mohanty,J True copy Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 12th November, 2012/A.K.Behera. Secretary