Judgment 1. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The petitioner represents some of the employees employed by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO). The petitioner Union and other Labour Unions initially entered into a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, both parties, viz., all the Unions who signed the settlement as well as the respondent Board went before the Conciliation Officer and the settlement was converted into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act on 10.08.2007. 2. The settlement provides for absorption of 6000 contract labourers into the Service of the respondent Board. The settlement also provided for absorption of 15600 contract workmen. As per Clause 3 of the settlement, a Committee of Officers would identify these 15600 contract labourers for absorption based on the payment of ex-gratia. Thus, the settlement provides for absorption of 21,600 contract labourers into service. 3. It is a significant fact that the petitioner Union also signed the settlement with eyes open earlier under Section 18(1) and later under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act. The settlement signed under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act is binding on all work force, irrespective of the fact, whether some of them are not members of any of the Unions, which signed the settlement. A settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act is like an Award passed by a Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. A party, who has signed the settlement has no locus standi to question the same after having benefited from the said settlement. Only a Union, which is not a party to the settlement can question the same by raising an Industrial Dispute; even in that case, there is limited scope for interference of the settlement. 4. In the case on hand, the settlement has provided for absorption of 21600 contract workmen into service. Hence, the petitioner cannot question one of the terms of settlement after having signed the settlement and that too in a writ proceeding. 5. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.