Judgment : 1. Should there not be an application of mind by the Government in forming an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended for an order to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal ? The orders of the Government directing four industrial disputes to be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal are challenged in these four writ petitions. 2. M/s.Grasim Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management' for short) moved the Government of Kerala for permission to close down the undertaking which was however turned down. Later the issue as regards the grant of permission to effect closure of the pulp and staple fiber divisions was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. This was the subject matter of I.D.No.50/2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode wherein the Management and all the trade unions were parties. The services of about 145 staff members were dispensed with on 12.7.2000 after the undertaking suspended its operations allegedly due to uneconomical reasons. The issue as regards the termination of the services of the said 145 staff members and the relief to which they were entitled to was also referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. This was the subject matter of I.D.No.3/2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode wherein also the Management and all the trade unions were parties and both the industrial disputes were pending. 3. A tripartite settlement dated 7.7.2001 was entered into between the Management and the various trade unions under the auspices of the State Conciliation Officer during the pendency of the industrial disputes. The same provided for closure compensation 'to all the permanent workmen of the company on its rolls on the date of the settlement including trainees and probationers'. The same benefit was extended to the staff members who were parties to I.D.No.3/2001 except those who had attained the age of superannuation as on 30.6.2001. The tripartite settlement was produced in I.D. Nos. 50/ 2000 & 3/2001 and awards were passed therein upholding the request of the Management to effect closure. The workmen as well as the 145 staff members were also held entitled to closure compensation as per the terms of the tripartite settlement in the two separate awards passed. 4. The tripartite settlement was produced in I.D. Nos. 50/ 2000 & 3/2001 and awards were passed therein upholding the request of the Management to effect closure. The workmen as well as the 145 staff members were also held entitled to closure compensation as per the terms of the tripartite settlement in the two separate awards passed. 4. The contesting respondents are all admittedly staff members who were either not on the rolls of the company as on the date of tripartite agreement or had attained the age of superannuation as on 30.6.2001. They contended that they had been unjustifiably denied the closure compensation as per the tripartite settlement on the basis of which the industrial awards were passed. The staff members (14 in number) moved the District Labour Officer who attempted a conciliation and later forwarded a failure report to the Government. It is on that basis had the Government issued the impugned orders referring the disputes for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. I heard Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, Senior Advocate on behalf of the Management and Mr.George Cherian as well as Mr.Anil Kumar.C. on behalf of the staff members. I also heard Mr.Rafeek.V.K., Government Pleader on behalf of the Government of Kerala. 6. The Management contended that only the permanent workmen who were on the rolls of the company as on the date of tripartite settlement were entitled to closure compensation as per its terms. Similarly only the staff members who were parties to I.D.No.3/2001 and had not attained the age of superannuation as on 30.6.2001 were entitled to closure compensation as per its terms. The tripartite settlement so entered into in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding on all the parties to the industrial disputes under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Management pointed out that the awards passed in I.D.Nos.50/2000 & 3/2001 itself recorded the subjective satisfaction of the Industrial Tribunal that the terms of the tripartite settlement were fair and reasonable. Challenge to the awards made in O.P.Nos.31964/2001 and 25200/2001 on the file of this Court by workmen who were similarly situate also became futile. The Management asserted that all the workmen are bound by the award in I.D.No.50/2000 and all the staff members are bound by the award in I.D.No.3/2001. Challenge to the awards made in O.P.Nos.31964/2001 and 25200/2001 on the file of this Court by workmen who were similarly situate also became futile. The Management asserted that all the workmen are bound by the award in I.D.No.50/2000 and all the staff members are bound by the award in I.D.No.3/2001. Therefore no industrial disputes exist or is apprehended in the wake of the industrial adjudication as to warrant an order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal again. It is also the case of the Management that no industrial dispute could be raised after effecting closure of the establishment relying on Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pipraich Sugar Mills' Mazdoor Union [1957 (1) LLJ 235] 7. The staff members on the other hand contended that their cause was not properly espoused by the trade unions in I.D.Nos.50/2000 and 3/2001 and that they had been unjustifiably excluded. The staff members lamented that there is no reason as to why those who were not on the rolls of the company on the date of the tripartite settlement should be denied the closure compensation. Similarly there is no rationale in confining the benefit to the parties in I.D.No.3/2001 only and that too to those staff members who would not have attained the age of superannuation as on 30.6.2001. The staff members distinguished the dictum in Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd.'s case pointing out that their services were terminated even before the alleged closure which also was not bonafide and genuine. The staff members finally contended that the impugned orders making a reference of the industrial disputes for adjudication is an administrative act of the Government beyond judicial scrutiny. 8. The tripartite settlement arrived at in the instant case was in the course of conciliation proceedings and therefore it carries a presumption that it is just and fair as has been found by the Industrial Tribunal itself. It becomes binding on all the parties to the dispute as well as other workmen in the establishment to which the dispute relates and an individual employee cannot seek to wriggle out of the same. Such a settlement which is a product of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight and consideration and more so when the same has been arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding. Such a settlement which is a product of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight and consideration and more so when the same has been arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding. The settlement can only be ignored in exceptional circumstances viz., when it is demonstrably unjust or is the result of corruption on the part of those who were instrumental for the same. [See I.T.C.Limited Workers' Welfare Association v. Management of I.T.C.Ltd. and others (2002 (1) LLJ 848)] The contention that the settlement is discriminatory in as much as it excluded a section of workmen and staff members already stands repelled by the dismissal of O.P.Nos.31964/2000 and 25200/2001 as already stated. The only contention by the 14 staff members in the instant case is that they should also be extended the benefit of the tripartite settlement as regards closure compensation as was done to others in I.D.No.3/2001. I should note that the staff members who now seek reference have not raised any allegation of fraud or corruption on the part of those who were instrumental in the settlement. What then is the effect of the tripartite settlement entered into in terms of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the industrial awards passed on its basis? Should not also the Government opine that the staff members are workmen before it choses to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [See Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajith Kumar Barat and others ( 2000 (1) LLJ 809 )] 9. It is not destructive of the rights of the Management who is the aggrieved party to show that what was referred by the Government for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal is not an industrial dispute at all. It is the existence of the industrial dispute which would clothe the appropriate Government with the power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. The Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and others [ 2000 (1) LLJ 247 ] held as follows:- "It will be thus seen that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be subject matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the industrial dispute which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended appropriate government lacks power to make any reference" (emphasis supplied) This decision has been quoted with approval in ANZ Grindlays Bank (Now known as Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.) v. Union of India and others [2006 (1) LLJ 271] 10. The orders referring the disputes for adjudication by Industrial Tribunal are not totally immune from judicial review as held in Ram Avatar Sharma and others v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1985 SC 915 ]. A total non-application of mind by the Government of Kerala is well evident in the instant case in forming an opinion as to whether industrial disputes exist or is apprehended. The question whether industrial disputes subsist in the wake of a tripartite settlement based on which industrial adjudication culminated looms large. The Industrial Tribunal is a creature of the statute which gets jurisdiction on the basis of reference and it is doubtful as to whether it can effectively go into the validity of reference itself. More than a decade has elapsed since the date of closure of the undertaking and an industrial adjudication would be warranted at this distance of time only if an industrial dispute lingers on. Whether the closure of the establishment is bonafide and if so, whether industrial disputes of the nature could be raised are also pertinent aspects. I feel that the Government of Kerala should re-visit the materials and form an opinion afresh as to the necessity for reference of the industrial disputes in the case on hand. 11. The impugned orders of the Government of Kerala (Ext.P5 in O.P.No.7215/2003, Ext. P4 in W.P.(C) No.31623/2003, Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.31670/2003 and Ext.P7 in W.P. (C) No.23772/2001) are quashed. The Government of Kerala is directed to reconsider the issue in terms of Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in the light of the observations above. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.