Judgment : The petitioners seek for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the award of the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, dated 29.02.2000 in I.D. Nos.30 of 1999 to I.D.Nos.67 of 1999 and to grant consequential benefits to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have been working as Realers in the second respondent-Cotton Mills Limited. Contending that the second respondent obtained resignation letters from the petitioners by deceitful means and contending that the resignation letters of the petitioners are invalid, the petitioners raised Industrial Disputes that they be paid retrenchment benefit at Rs.1,00,000/- less the amounts paid to each of the petitioners or for reinstatement of the petitioners. The Industrial Disputes were initially numbered as ID Nos.246 of 1994 to ID Nos.283 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal-III, Hyderabad. They were renumbered as I.D.Nos.30 of 1994 to 67 of 2004 before Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (the first respondent). 3. The simple case of the petitioners is that the second respondent obtained resignation letters from the petitioners on 06.07.1993 promising that every workman would be paid Rs.1,00,000/- as retrenchment benefit. The petitioners also contended that they affixed their signatures or thumb impressions on blank forms believing the promise of the second respondent and that the second respondent, however, ultimately paid meagre amounts to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had no alternative but to accept the money offered by the second respondent on account of impecunity of the petitioners. The petitioners, consequently, claimed that the second respondent be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners towards retrenchment benefit after deducting the amounts already paid to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that there was a settlement between the Union and the Management and that the petitioners were consequently paid benefits as admitted by the petitioners. When the petitioners contended that they were not members of the Union which entered into the settlement, the learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance upon Herbertsons Limited v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited (1976) 4 SCC 736 ) wherein it was observed that in a case of collective bargaining, acceptance of the settlement by every individual workman is not necessary. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that when there is an agreement to retrench the petitioners, the amounts due to the petitioners under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was paid to the petitioners, more so, where the petitioners voluntarily tendered their resignations. 5. It may be recalled that the claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners submitted the resignations of the petitioners not voluntarily but were obtained with a promise that each of them would be paid Rs.1,00,000/- as benefit when the resignations are tendered. Admittedly, the termination of the petitioners from service was on account of resignation of the petitioners. The petitioners examined as many as 38 witnesses, who are the petitioners themselves before the first respondent. The second respondent examined two witnesses on its side. The case of the petitioners is identical. It is contended by all the petitioners in their evidence that the petitioners submitted their resignations on 06.07.1993 on the promise that each of them would be paid Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and that meagre amounts have been paid to them. The learned counsel for the second respondent contended that if any order is passed in favour of the petitioners directing the second respondent to pay further amounts, it would act against other workers who have not approached the Tribunal. 6. It would appear that 80 workers have tendered their resignations. All of them were paid compensation. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the compensation was calculated in accordance with the Rules and paid accordingly and that all the workmen including the petitioners received the same without any demur or protest. His claim is that in the event additional compensation is paid to the petitioners, the other workmen, who have resigned but have not raised Industrial Disputes, would suffer as they would not be entitled to the same, since they are not parties to the Industrial Dispute. I do not consider that the writ petition can be dismissed on the ground that the others would not obtain pecuniary gain in the event pecuniary gain is granted to the petitioners. I do not consider that the writ petition can be dismissed on the ground that the others would not obtain pecuniary gain in the event pecuniary gain is granted to the petitioners. The writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that other workmen have not chosen to file a writ petition or an I.D. From the overwhelming evidence adduced by the petitioners, I am satisfied that the petitioners would not have resigned but for the promise to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to each of them. 7. Admittedly, such a promise had not been adhered to. This writ petition, consequently, deserves to be allowed ordering reinstatement of the petitioners into service. However, where the petitioners tendered resignations in 1993, I do not consider it appropriate to order reinstatement at this stage. Instead it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent to pay additional compensation at Rs.25,000/- to each of the petitioners, apart from the compensation already paid to them at the time when their resignations were accepted. Ordering reinstatement would not be equitable to the second respondent in the present circumstances of the case. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to pay additional amount of Rs.25,000/- to each of the petitioners towards compensation or retiral benefits in the facts and circumstances of the case. The second respondent shall pay the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.