JUDGMENT V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Pugazhenthi, learned counsel representing Mr. A. Nagarathinam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Munusamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order made in W.P. No. 28429 of 2008, dated 02.12.2008, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition in the following manner:- "This Court has already held that the settlement under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act is only a contract and that cannot be enforced by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, the petitioner was the beneficiary of the terms of settlement and enjoyed the said settlement. The writ petition filed by the Corporation was also withdrawn. After withdrawal the petitioner cannot improve his case. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed." 3. The appellant herein/writ petitioner claimed the benefit of the award under a dispute raised by the Trade Union in I.D. No. 85 of 1999, dated 09.05.2002. The same was challenged by the respondents Corporation in W.P. No. 45247 of 2002. Pending the writ petition, the appellant as well as the respondents Corporation had entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act] on 10.09.2007 giving quietus to the benefit arising out of the award. Thereafter, the respondents Corporation had withdrawn the said writ petition filed by them and on 02.12.2008 and this Court, accordingly, passed an order dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. Pursuant to the same, the benefit of settlement has been extended to the appellant herein/writ petitioner. However, not being satisfied with the implementation, the appellant herein/writ petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 21862 of 2008 and the same was disposed of on 25.09.2008 with a direction to the first respondent corporation to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner dated 04.07.2008 and accordingly, the first respondent has passed an order on 12.11.2008 which reads as follows:- The request of the individual has been examined in detail. In view of various representations of the individual, it was decided to enter into a settlement, even though the award passed by the Labour Court, Trichy in ID No. 85/99 was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras on 17.12.2000 in W.P. No. 45247 of 2002. Pursuant to the terms of settlement, appropriate order was issued by Head Office on 10.9.2007 and the R.M. Perambalur has also passed orders on 24.9.2007 to regularise the break in service for the period from 30.3.1978 to 21.7.1982 as continuity of service and the individual was promoted as Junior Assistant on 4.7.1997 without monetary benefits as per Head Office circular No. F1/66763/2001, dated 13.9.2001. It has also been informed that in view of the individual has passed D.O.M. test only in December 1991 and has awarded various punishments for the period from 15.12.1982 to 1.5.2003, he cannot compared himself with Thiru. Nagaiah Pather, who was promoted as Assistant on 31.10.1984, as he was found eligible to be promoted as Assistant. The other contention in his representation received on 4.7.2008 that discrimination was shown on him are all not correct and the allegations are only an after thought. The terms of settlement has been implemented without any deviation. The individual has raised his further claim after a lapse of 10 months, that too after getting all the benefits as per the settlement. As such the request of the individual promoting him as Assistant with monetary benefits cannot be complied with. The present move of the petitioner to claim promotions and monetary benefits are beyond the scope of the terms of settlement entered under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 on 10.9.2007." 4. From a reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is seen that the appellant herein/writ petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for his suffering and mental agony. But the learned Single Judge took a view that once the settlement gives benefit to the workman and the workman also enjoyed the benefit, he cannot ask for any further claim by filing number of writ petitions claiming certain things one way or other after the implementation of the settlement. Therefore, holding that settlement under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Act cannot be enforced by the writ court by invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissed the writ petition. 5. Therefore, holding that settlement under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Act cannot be enforced by the writ court by invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissed the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that as per the award of settlement, the appellant has to be given promotion to the post of Junior Assistant as in the case of his junior Thiru Nagaiah Pathar, who was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 04.07.1977 and therefore, the appellant also is entitled to get promotion like his junior Thiru Nagaiah Pathar, who had been further promoted to the post of Assistant. Therefore, finding error with the writ Court, the learned counsel for the appellant would raise a plea of further promotion in accordance with the settlement. 6. Refuting the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that on par with Thiru Nagaiah Pathar, the appellant has been given promotion as Junior Assistant with effect from 4.7.1977 and also extended the benefits as directed by the lower Court as per the award of settlement and therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the finding rendered by the writ Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 8. It is seen that the appellant entered into the service in the respondents Corporation as Bill Clerk on 21.03.1975 and terminated from service on 30.03.1978. Again, he was reappointed as Bill Clerk on 22.07.1982 as fresh entrant without backwages and continuity of service. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute seeking for backwages and continuity of service for the period from 21.3.1975 to 21.07.1982 and the Labour Court, Thiruchirapalli, passed an award in I.D. No. 85 of 1999 on 9.5.2002 directing the respondents Corporation to provide the petitioner with continuity of service for the period including promotion and to pay 50% of backwages. Against which, the respondents filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 45247 of 2002 before this Court and obtained an interim stay of the award of the Labour Court on condition to pay a sum of Rs. 4,800/- and thereafter, the appellant and the respondents Corporation entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act on 10.09.2007. Against which, the respondents filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 45247 of 2002 before this Court and obtained an interim stay of the award of the Labour Court on condition to pay a sum of Rs. 4,800/- and thereafter, the appellant and the respondents Corporation entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act on 10.09.2007. As per the terms of settlement, clause (2) of the settlement would inform promotion will be given to Thiru P. Chellaiah, as Junior Assistant with effect from 4.7.1977 as in the case of his junior Thiru Nagaiah Pathar, who was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 4.7.1977. However, in the case of Financial Benefit, he will be sanctioned with effect from the date of joining as Junior Assistant as per the Head Office Circular No. F1/66763/2001, dated 13.9.2001. Based on the above terms, if he is to be paid only financial benefit, that would be paid after having adjusted the amount of Rs. 4,800/- on 23.02.2004 as per the interim order passed by this Court. 9. Now, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms of the above settlement, the appellant is entitled for further promotion also. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondents Corporation vide proceedings in R.C. No. E3/1791/2007, dated 24.09.2007 with reference to the Labour Court award under Section 18(1) AE6/105329/06/ dated 10.09.2007, the appellant has been promoted as Junior Assistant and posted to Regional Office, Tapal Section in the existing vacancy. Therefore, the terms of settlement have been implemented in the light of spirit as informed of and therefore, the learned Single Judge held that benefit of settlement has been enjoyed by the writ petitioner/the appellant herein and he cannot now file a writ petition for enforcement of any settlement after the benefit of the terms of settlement has been given and enjoyed by him. Such a finding of the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, is in conformity with the law laid down and therefore, there are no warranting circumstances to interfere with such finding rendered by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 10. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of further promotion, the appellant is entitled to make claim and therefore, he may be given liberty to approach the respondents Corporation. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 10. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of further promotion, the appellant is entitled to make claim and therefore, he may be given liberty to approach the respondents Corporation. If an employee is having a legal right to claim any further promotion, it is always open to him to make such a plea and there is no need for specific direction to be given for that purpose.