JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner - Agriculture Produce Market Committee [hereinafter referred to as "the Committee"] and Mr. H.N. Parekh, learned advocate, for Mr. A.H. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent - workmen. 2. This group of three petitions are taken out by the petitioner committee against different but similar orders passed in review applications which were filed by the petitioner committee. 3. During the pendency of these petitions, the parties entered into negotiations for overall and final settlement of all disputes and claims and as a result of negotiations between the parties, an amicable settlement is arrived at. 4. Since the parties arrived at and also executed an agreement in terms of the settlement of the dispute, a request was made by learned advocates yesterday, i.e. on 29.3.2016, that office may be directed to list captioned three petitions for appropriate orders in terms of the settlement. It was also requested that the matters may be listed for appropriate orders on 30.3.2016 because the respondent workmen have informed that they will remain present in the Court on 30.3.2016. 5. In view of such request, the office was instructed to list the petitions in today's cause list. Accordingly, the petitions are listed at serial Nos. 46, 63 and 64 in today's cause list. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner committee, and Mr. Parekh, learned advocate for the respondent workmen, are present. 6. Mr. Desai and Mr. Parekh, learned advocates for the petitioner committee and respondent workmen have jointly tendered photocopies of the agreements - for settlement of dispute and claim - executed by the petitioner committee and the respondent workmen on 14.3.2016. 7. On examination of the petitions, it appears that the respondent workmen had raised industrial dispute which were referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Nadiad. 7.1 The reference cases came to be registered as Reference (LCN) No. 858 of 1990, Reference (LCN) No. 860 of 1990 and Reference (LCN) No. 845 of 1990. 7.2 The said reference cases came to be decided by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 20.8.2008, award dated 21.8.2008 and award dated 14.8.2008 respectively. 7.3 Thereafter, for the reasons mentioned in the applications, the petitioner committee filed review applications before the learned Labour Court. 7.2 The said reference cases came to be decided by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 20.8.2008, award dated 21.8.2008 and award dated 14.8.2008 respectively. 7.3 Thereafter, for the reasons mentioned in the applications, the petitioner committee filed review applications before the learned Labour Court. 7.4 The said review applications were registered as Review Application No. 4 of 2008, Review Application No. 2 of 2008 and Review Application No. 3 of 2008 respectively. 7.5 After hearing the parties, the learned Labour Court rejected the said review applications by separate but similar orders dated 31.8.2010. 8. In this background, the petitioner committee filed present petitions and challenged the awards passed by the learned Labour Court in said reference cases and also challenged the orders passed in the review applications. 8.1 The summary of the reference cases, date of the awards, review applications and date of order in review applications are supplied by learned advocate for the petitioner committee in a tabular statement, which is reproduced below:-- Sr. No. Petition No. (SCA) Ref. No. Date of Award Review Application No. Date of Order 1 16447/10 (LCN) 860/90 21.08.2008 02/01/08 31.08.2008 2 16448/10 (LCN) 845/90 14.08.2008 03/01/08 31.08.2008 3 16446/10 (LCN) 858/90 20.08.2008 04/01/08 31.08.2008 9. After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner committee against the above awards in reference cases and the orders passed in review applications, the Court admitted the petitions and granted interim relief vide order dated 1.4.2011 on condition that the petitioner shall comply the requirement under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9.1 It is not in dispute that during pendency of the petitions, the workmen had been paid last drawn wages in accordance with Section 17(B) of the Act and the condition imposed by order dated 1.4.2011 is satisfied. 10. As mentioned earlier, during pendency of these petitions, the petitioner committee and the respondent workmen entered into negotiations for full and final settlement. 10.1 As a result of the negotiations, an amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties. The terms and conditions have been reduced into writing by way of consent terms and an agreement is executed and notarized on 14.5.2016. 10.2 The said agreement/consent terms is signed by the workmen and the authorized officer of the petitioner committee. 10.3 The learned advocates for the petitioner committee and the respondent workmen have identified the signatures of their respective clients. 10.2 The said agreement/consent terms is signed by the workmen and the authorized officer of the petitioner committee. 10.3 The learned advocates for the petitioner committee and the respondent workmen have identified the signatures of their respective clients. 10.4 On reading the settlement, it appears that the petitioner committee has accepted and agreed to pay a lump sum compensation in the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs to each of the three workmen by way of full and final settlement of all rights, claims, disputes and demands of the workmen including those arising from the awards and the orders passed in the review applications by the learned Labour Court. 10.5 The parties have agreed that the respondent workmen will accept the said amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in full and final settlement of their all claims, demands and disputes including those flowing from the settlement and on payment of the said amount, any claim, dispute, demand will not survive and if there is any dispute, claim or demand pending, then, the same shall stand settled and waived in view of the full and final settlement dated 14.3.2016. 11. Today, learned advocates for the petitioner committee and the respondent workmen jointly submitted that the settlement may be accepted on record and the respective awards in above mentioned three reference cases and the orders in the review applications may be set aside/modified in terms of the settlement and the petitions may be disposed of in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at full and final settlement. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner committee and the respondent workmen also jointly submitted that the amount agreed to be paid by virtue of the said settlement dated 14.3.2016 have already been paid to the respondent workmen by separate cheques dated 30.3.2016 drawn on Bank of Baroda and the said cheques have been accepted by each concerned workmen. 13. The respondent workmen are present in the Court. 13.1 They have been identified by learned advocate for the respondent workmen. 13.2 The workmen have, in response to the query by the Court, said that they have voluntarily arrived at the said settlement and the cheques have been received and accepted by them. 14. 13. The respondent workmen are present in the Court. 13.1 They have been identified by learned advocate for the respondent workmen. 13.2 The workmen have, in response to the query by the Court, said that they have voluntarily arrived at the said settlement and the cheques have been received and accepted by them. 14. Having regard to the above mentioned aspects and at the joint request by learned advocate for the petitioner committee and the learned advocate for the respondent workmen, the impugned awards passed by the learned Labour Court in above mentioned reference cases and the orders passed by the learned Labour Court in above mentioned review applications are modified in terms of the settlement dated 14.3.2016 and it is clarified that upon encashment of the cheques and on receipt of the amount by the concerned workmen, the impugned awards shall stand satisfied. With aforesaid observations, clarifications and directions, present petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petition.