Judgment : 1. As many as 47 workmen laid this writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent–Joint Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Ranga Reddy Zone and the 3rd respondent–Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, in entertaining the disputes and disposing of the same in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘I. D. Act’) and also the retrenchment of the petitioners by the 4th respondent-M/s. United Spirits Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad, in contravention of Section 25N read with 25F of the I. D. Act, as illegal, and also for grant of consequential relief of direction to the 4th respondent to reinstate them into service with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners joined the service of the 4th respondent as casual labourers on 13.05.2004. On 20.04.2009 a settlement was arrived at between the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent-M/s United Spirits Company Employees Union. On the very next day i.e. 21.04.2009, the petitioners were not allowed to attend duty, thus, leading to the retrenchment of the petitioners. Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioners through Nacharam Industrial Area Mazdoor Sangh, before the 3rd respondent on 04.05.2009 questioning the retrenchment. A joint meeting was fixed on 15.05.2009 but the same was postponed to 10.06.2009 and from then onwards, it underwent several postponements. It was finally held on 29.01.2010. The 4th respondent claimed that it entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent, a recognized union, for the period of three years under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, and that the agreement was effective from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011, albeit the agreement was signed on 20.04.2009. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners served for a period of more than 5 years and that their retrenchment is in violation of Section 25F and 25N of the I. D. Act. It is also contended that the settlement dated 20.04.2009 between the 4th and the 5th respondent is vague and is not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners consequently claimed that their retrenchment may be set aside and that they may be reinstated into service. 4. It is also contended that the settlement dated 20.04.2009 between the 4th and the 5th respondent is vague and is not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners consequently claimed that their retrenchment may be set aside and that they may be reinstated into service. 4. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand, contended that the settlement entered into on 20.04.2009 is pursuant to the charter of demands submitted by the 5th respondent including the demand for regularisation of casual labourers, and that there was no clause in the settlement regarding the disengagement of casual labourers since such a question did not arise for consideration. He also contended that the petitioners may invoke Section 36A of the I.D. Act, if they are aggrieved by their disengagement from the service. His main contention is that the 4th respondent entered into terms of settlement with the 5th respondent, a recognized union, and that the petitioners, as individuals, may move appropriate Forum if they are aggrieved by the action of their disengagement by the 4th respondent. He further contended that terms of settlement, however, cannot be questioned by the petitioners when the 4th respondent entered into terms of settlement with the 5th respondent, a recognised union, in conciliation proceedings headed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent also contended that the union of the petitioners moved the 3rd respondent on 04.05.2009 for conciliation regarding disengagement and that on 29.01.2010, the Settlement Officer concluded that as terms of settlement were already entered into by the 4th respondent with the 5th respondent, a recognized union, the petitioners were not entitled to raise any dispute. The 3rd respondent consequently closed the conciliation proceedings under Section 12(3) of the I. D. Act. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent also contended that the petitioners indeed were casual labourers and that they did not put up 240 days of service in any year. His contention inter alia is that the length of service of the petitioners is a disputed question of fact and that the writ petition cannot go into such question of disputed fact. In General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, v. Satrughan Nishad ( 2003 (8) SCC 639 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the Supreme Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. In General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, v. Satrughan Nishad ( 2003 (8) SCC 639 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the Supreme Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. He contends on the basis of this decision that the very writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it involves a disputed question of fact. He also places reliance upon Madhya Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Federation Limited v. Shankarlal Gupta (1996(2) L.L.N.745) where the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the Conciliation Officer acting under Section 12 of the I.D. Act exercised powers and duties in conciliation proceedings only to mediate by inducing the parties to the dispute to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement of industrial dispute and that the Conciliation Officer has no authority to make a decision relating the industrial dispute or to pass any interim order or final order during the conciliation proceedings. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have been working for more than five years continuously and that it is not open for the 4th respondent now to dispute the fact about continuous service of the petitioners for more than 240 days. 7. I am afraid that the question raised by the petitioners is primarily a question as to the entitlement of the 4th respondent to disengage the petitioners from service. Relying upon the terms of settlement entered into between the 4th and 5th respondent, the 4th respondent is contending that the petitioners cannot question the disengagement as there was no term of settlement regarding the disengagement of the petitioners from service. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon Oswal Agro Furane Limited v. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union ( 2005(3) SCC 224 ) where it was held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act prevail over the settlement arrived at under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon Oswal Agro Furane Limited v. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union ( 2005(3) SCC 224 ) where it was held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act prevail over the settlement arrived at under the Act. It is further contended by him that the termination/disengagement of the petitioners from service is tantamount to retrenchment and that the 4th respondent cannot retrench the petitioners without following provisions under Section 25F and 25N of the I.D. Act, on the ground that the terms of settlement between the 4th and the 5th respondent permitted retrenchment of the petitioners without the benefit of Section 25F and 25N of the I.D. Act. I am inclined to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the case cited. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioners are casual labourers of the 4th respondent and are not members of the 5th respondent, a recognised union which entered into terms of settlement with the 4th respondent on 20.04.2009. As a sequel of the settlement, the petitioners were retrenched by the 4th respondent without giving the benefit of Section 25F and 25N of the I.D. Act. The terms of settlement cannot take away the statutory right of the petitioners for the benefit under Section 25F and 25N of the I.D. Act. Admittedly, these two provisions have not been complied with by the 4th respondent. Consequently, the retrenchment of the petitioners is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the retrenchment of the petitioners with effect from 21.04.2009 is found to be illegal as the same was not followed by the benefits under Section 25F and 25N of the I.D. Act and is consequently set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners into service. However, as the petitioners failed to establish and even failed to urge that they were not gainfully employed after their retrenchment, the petitioners are not entitled to back wages till the date of their reinstatement. The 4th respondent is further directed to reinstate the petitioners into service within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.