Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs: (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a declaration and/or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing and ordering the respondents nos. 1 to 3 herein, to forthwith forbear and desist themselves from in any way resiling or acting contrary to or in consistent with the provisions of the statutorily entered Memorandum of Settlement dated 4/2/1998; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions commanding the respondents nos.1 and 3 herein to forthwith implement and act in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement dated 4/2/1998 including and to take steps and issue appropriate orders to give representation to the petitioners members on the Board of Trustees of Mormugao Port Trust; (c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an interim order and direction, calling for the records of the case and upon examining the validity, legality and reason ability of the non-implementation of the terms of Settlement dated 4/2/1998 direct the parties respondents hereto act in accordance with the Settlement dated 4/2/1998; (d) pending the hearing and final disposal of he present petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: (i) direct and order the respondents nos. 1 and 3 herein to desist and forbear themselves from in any way acting contrary to or in defiance of or inconsistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into on 4/2/1998. (ii) issue an order directing and ordering the respondents to forthwith take steps for implementation of the statutory settlement/instrument dated 4/2/1998 and to take steps for giving representation to petitioners members on the Board of Trustees of the Mormugao Port Trust. (iii) issue ad-interim ex-parte reliefs in terms of clauses (d) (i) and d (ii); (e) that such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the nature and circumstances of the case be granted. 3. (iii) issue ad-interim ex-parte reliefs in terms of clauses (d) (i) and d (ii); (e) that such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the nature and circumstances of the case be granted. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under: The Dock Workers (Regulation of Employees) Act, 1948 and its applicability to Major Port Trusts came into force as enacted by the Parliament in 1948. Thereafter, the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was enacted by the Parliament and various Major Port Trusts in the country were set up under the constituted statute. The Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport by letter dated 11/8/1997, informed the respondent no.2 about the implementation of the 1997 Act and requested the said respondent to initiate necessary steps for merger in terms of the provisions of the Bill and to keep the Ministry informed of the development from time to time. Thereafter, the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Inapplicability to Major Ports) Act, 1997 was passed ion 19/8/1997. Thereafter on 3/11/1997, the scheme for merger of the respondent no.2 and 3 was sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport. Respondent no.1, thereafter informed the Chairman of respondent no.2 in respect of various items mentioned in para 5 that it does not require any special approval and that the said item could be considered after a resolution was passed by the Mormugao Port Trust Board and after it was received in the Ministry. On 18/12/1997, the respondent no.3 in its board meeting vide resolution no.1382 resolved in principle to carry out the merger of respondent no.3 into that of respondent no.2, as the 10th department of respondent no.2. Thereafter, on 4/2/1998, the respondents no.2 and 3 and the petitioners signed a Memorandum of Settlement, in terms of Section 2(p) and 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as per the requirements of section 3 of the 1997 Act. The respondent no.2 also in its board meeting held on 7/2/1998 endorsed the merger of respondent no.3 into that of respondent no.2 as the 10th Department. 4. The Union of India accepted the settlement and issued a notification under section 3 read with section 4 of the Inapplicability Act through Gazette notification dated 17/3/1998. The respondent no.2 also in its board meeting held on 7/2/1998 endorsed the merger of respondent no.3 into that of respondent no.2 as the 10th Department. 4. The Union of India accepted the settlement and issued a notification under section 3 read with section 4 of the Inapplicability Act through Gazette notification dated 17/3/1998. However, on 4/9/1998, when the letter was sent by respondent no.1 addressed to the chairman of respondent no.2 it intimated that the merger department be called as “Cargo Handling Department” and the Traffic Manager of the Port Trust be made the head of the department with higher pay-scale than the Deputy Chairman of respondent no.3. Thus, the said direction was contrary to the settlement which was arrived at under the provisions of the said act. Since no action was taken on the representations made, the petitioners were constrained to file the petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents no.1, 2 and 3 could not retract from statutorily entered settlement in terms of Sections 2(p) and 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It is contended that this was contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. An Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in the said reply, which is filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it is stated that merely because an officer of the Ministry appended his signature on the settlement as a member of the Mormugao Dock Labour Board, his signature on the settlement cannot be construed as approval of the Central Government to the said settlement. According to respondent no.1, therefore, as per the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Inapplicability to Major Ports) Act, 1997, the settlement was required to be signed between the Dock Labour Board, its workmen and the management of the concerned Major Port and the Central Government was not required to be a party to the settlement for merger. It is, therefore, contended that the settlement which was arrived at could not bind the Central Government and the provisions of the said statute would prevail upon the settlement and as such, the principles of promissory estoppels would not apply to the present case. It is, therefore, contended that the settlement which was arrived at could not bind the Central Government and the provisions of the said statute would prevail upon the settlement and as such, the principles of promissory estoppels would not apply to the present case. However, in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-reply, it is specifically stated therein that the Government is not averse to consider giving representations to Stevedores, on the Port Trust Board, but the only objection which has been raised is that authority has been trespassed by inclusion of such a clause in the settlement instead of recommending the same to the Government. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents at length. In our view, the petition can be disposed of by directing the Union of India to consider the requests of the petitioners to give representations to Stevedores on the Port Trust Board, as expeditiously as possible and if possible favourably, since in view of the averments made in paragraph 8 of the petition, the Government is not averse in principle to giving representations to the Stevedores on the Port trust Board. Apart from that, by virtue of the interim relief order passed by this Court the Stevedores have now been represented in the Port trust Board since 1999. In this view of the matter, we direct the respondent no.1 to consider the representations as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of eight weeks from today. With this direction, the petition is disposed of. 7. However, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue till the representations are considered.