ORDER: 1. As the facts leading to all the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in all the writ petitions joined the services of the second respondent management in June 1994. While they were in service, the second respondent had taken all steps to close down the factory without obtaining prior permission from Competent Authority. Although, by filing an application, the Management sought for retrenchment of employees, after the dismissal of the said application, they filed an application for closure of the factory under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act in December, 2002. Unfortunately, the Government did not pass any order within a period of three months, hence, the prayer sought for in the application deemed to have been granted under the deemed clause. Taking advantage of the deemed clause, the third respondent Management declared that the Textool Company Limited, Machinery Division would be closed on and from 31.03.2002. Aggrieved by the closure order, the petitioners' Union challenged the same on various grounds before this Court in W.P.No.11354 of 2002, wherein this Court directed the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether the closure of the industry was valid or not, with a further direction to implead all the unions in the reference. Pleading further, it was stated that the Industrial Tribunal after considering various records, came to the conclusion that the closure of the factory was not required and thereupon a finding was given that the application made by the management for closure lacked bonafide. In view of that, the petitioners and some other employees insisted upon an employment with the second respondent management, but, the claim of the petitioners was resisted on the ground that the Union had already entered into the settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Act, therefore, the said settlement would be binding upon the petitioners. Further, it was pointed out to the management that they could not take a different stand before the conciliation officer, as the management of the third respondent had already informed the (Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction) BIFR / fourth respondent to take over all the workmen along with the assets of the second respondent. Under these circumstances, when the management refused to provide with employment to the petitioners, they have filed an application before the first respondent. Under these circumstances, when the management refused to provide with employment to the petitioners, they have filed an application before the first respondent. But, the first respondent, without even ascertaining the application, rejected the application holding that it was not maintainable. Since the reason given by the first respondent is per-se illegal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the same. 3. Learned counsel further pleaded that the first respondent while passing the impugned orders ought to have taken note of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal stating that the application filed by the management for closure of factory lacked bonafide. Further, it was contended that after the closure of the factory, the petitioners were not paid with any amount nor any notice from the management calling upon them to receive any compensation. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the first respondent. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the actual and vital facts with a view to mislead the Court and that the petitioners have come to the Court with unclean hands by making false allegations and therefore, they are guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi. It was further contended that the impugned communication of the first respondent was in accordance with law and based on the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that they were the member of CITU was a false one. It was the Textool workers and staff union, who represented the case of the petitioners in the proceedings before the Tribunal in I.D.No.23 of 2002, before this Court in W.P.No.36888 of 2002 and in the subsequent settlement dated 12.04.2003, hence, the petitioners are bound by the closure of operation of law, pursuant to the settlement dated 12.04.2003 and therefore, having been a member of Textool Workers and Staff Union, the petitioners cannot now blow hot and cold to suit their conveniences against the law. 5. Further, it was contended that the entire issue relating to the petitioners had already been agitated in various proceedings and finally settled by way of binding settlement, therefore, the settled issues cannot be reopened in another disputes. 5. Further, it was contended that the entire issue relating to the petitioners had already been agitated in various proceedings and finally settled by way of binding settlement, therefore, the settled issues cannot be reopened in another disputes. Further, it was stated that the petitioners, having been bound by the deemed closure by operation of law, it is not now open to the petitioners to make scurrilous allegations against the management and the Statutory Authority. On that basis, he prayed that the petitioners are not entitled to seek the relief as prayed for, as the writ petitions filed by the petitioners lack merits and hence, the same are liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 7. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent had two divisions, namely (i) Textile Machinery Division and (ii) Textile Division (Two spinning Units). In its' machinery unit, the said company engaged in manufacture of textile machineries, spare parts and accessories. But, unfortunately, due to severe recession made in the textile industry coupled with the liberalisation of import policy and competition from unorganised sector, a drastic downfall had occurred in selling the textile machines. Hence, a number of textile mills had put in position to give lay off, retrenchment and for closure of the textile industries. Though the Union had objected to the efforts of the third respondent, namely, lay off and retrenchment, they had entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, wherein, they have agreed to run the Machinery Division on single shift basis from 20.07.2001. Due to the further recession and shortfall of the sale orders, the production activities gradually reduced and reached a nil position. In view of the financial difficulties faced by the third respondent Company, a voluntary Separation Scheme was introduced in the interest of workmen. Majority of the workmen and staff had understood the position of the management and they had decided to leave their services under the said Scheme. Accordingly, all the members of the staff had voluntarily resigned from the service of the company and settled their accounts. Majority of the workmen and staff had understood the position of the management and they had decided to leave their services under the said Scheme. Accordingly, all the members of the staff had voluntarily resigned from the service of the company and settled their accounts. Ultimately, finding that the Machinery Division was no longer viable and left with no other alternative, the third respondent decided to close its Machinery Division and on 26.12.2001, they applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu for closure of textile Machinery Division with effect from 31.03.2002 under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, they requested the third respondent to pay the workmen something more as ex-gratia. Further, out of remaining 5 Unions, one Union remained ex-parte and four other Unions such as AITUC, AICCTU, CITU and TW&S objected for closure of Machinery Division. However, as the authority concerned failed to pass any order under Section 25-O of the I.D. Act, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, the deemed closure came into effect as contemplated under Section 25-O (3) of the I.D Act. Therefore, under Section 25-O(3) of the I.D Act, the Textile Machinery Division of the third respondent was closed on and from 31.3.2002 by operation of law. Aggrieved by the deemed closure, the two Trade Unions namely, AITUC and AICCTU filed Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.10304 and 10642 of 2002 before this Court. This Court passed the order dated 28.03.2002 directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to refer the dispute regarding the closure to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication insofar as the workmen covered in the above said two writ petitions are concerned, but, however, granted no relief to the Trade Unions. Accordingly, the Government of Tamil Nadu referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication by issuing G.O.(D)No.293, dated 10.04.2002. Thereupon, the learned Industrial Tribunal has taken up the reference sent by the Government of Tamil Nadu and numbered the same as I.D.No.23 of 2002. The learned tribunal after hearing all the 11 Trade Unions, passed an award dated 09.08.2002 in favour of the workmen, whose names are covered in W.P.Nos.10304 and 10642 of 2002 and granted no relief to any other union including the Textool Workers and Staff Union. The learned tribunal after hearing all the 11 Trade Unions, passed an award dated 09.08.2002 in favour of the workmen, whose names are covered in W.P.Nos.10304 and 10642 of 2002 and granted no relief to any other union including the Textool Workers and Staff Union. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.23 of 2002, the third respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.35147 of 2003 and this Court granted an order of interim stay of the operation of the award. Subsequently, the Textool Staff and Workers Union filed a writ petition in W.P.No.36888 of 2002 against the Award passed by the Tribunal. During the pendency of Writ Petition Nos.35147 of 2003 and 36888 of 2002, the Trade Unions AITUC and AICCTU entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, on 25.01.2003 with the third respondent Management insofar as their members are concerned. Subsequently, an impleading petition was filed by one C.Subramani on behalf of the workers, to include him as the petitioner in W.P.No.35147 of 2003. The Textool Workers and Staff Union also came forward to settle the issue amicably and as a result, one another settlement was reached under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act on 12.04.2003, therefore, one another settlement was also reached under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act on 12.04.2003, therefore, as ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.C.P.Limited v. Presiding Officer and others ( AIR 1997 (SC) 2334 ), when the disputed parties reached a settlement, they would be ordinarily bound by such settlement entered by their respective union with the company, unless it is shown that the settlement was ex-facie, unfair, unjust or malafide. But, in the present case, no such case was made out by the dissenting parties to the correctness of the settlement dated 12.04.2003. Further in the case of Herhertsons Limited v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and others ( AIR 1977 SC 322 ), the Apex Court, while considering the fact of settlement arrived at by the recognised union of majority of workers, held that when a recognised union negotiates with an employer, the workers, as individuals, do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement, since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interest of labour. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement, since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interest of labour. This would be the normal rule. There may be exceptional cases where there may be allegations of malafides, fraud or even corruption or other inducements. But, in the present case, the petitioners have not disputed the above settlement on the above line, therefore, the above settlement reached showing the collective bargaining is entitled to receive due weight and consideration. 8. Be that as it may, in a similar facts and circumstances of the case of the present writ petitions, I have also dealt with the same kind of facts and circumstances in W.P.No.22566 of 2004, dated 26.09.2012 to implement the scheme (Clause 8) of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi in case No.407 of 2002, dated 22.10.2003. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: "31.The above said Section 12(4) clearly shows that if no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report for ascertaining the fact and circumstances relating to the dispute and the reasons on account of which, a settlement could not be arrived at. The first respondent has rightly taken into account the fact that all the workers have settled the disputes. Therefore, the Union dropped the proceedings on receiving the lawyer's notice and decided not to proceed with the dispute. Hence, the petitioner cannot challenge the dropping of the proceedings passed by the first respondent." 9. In view of the above said order passed by me, the present writ petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.