JUDGMENT : S.N. PRASAD, J. The award passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.61 of 1980 dtd.30th December, 1991 has been challenged by the Management in this writ petition. 2. The issue raised in this writ petition is as to whether the award passed U/s.17 and notified U/s.17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be superseded by a settlement, that too not within the same parties. Before answering this issue it would be relevant to narrate the brief facts of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. (in short T.P.M.) at Choudwar was commissioned for manufacturing papers and to motivate the workers for higher production with commensurate increase in earning, an Incentive Bonus Scheme was initially introduced in certain operations, subsequently it was extended to all workmen excepting those who were working in Finishing Department, being aggrieved by the said action, the T.P.M. Workers Union raised an industrial dispute demanding production incentive bonus for finishers at par with the time-rated workers and on such demand a reference was made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar which was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No.32 of 1969, in which an award was passed on 30th June, 1971 whereby and where under the terms of reference has been answered by holding the finishers of T.P.M. No.3, Choudwar entitled to the production incentive bonus and that the Management should extend the scheme under Exts.2 and 2/1 to the piece-rated finishers and should lay down the rates and conditions for the same and thereafter it was challenged by opposite party no.4 Titaghur Paper Mills in an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and during pendency of the said appeal an amicable settlement was arrived in between T.P.M. (O.P.4) and the T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangh on 28.6.1974 and by the settlement it was agreed that the Finishers would get an incentive bonus @ 15% of the basic earning of the individual Finishers on their piece rated earning retrospectively w.e.f.01.09.1973. Thereafter the T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangh submitted a 17 Point Charter of Demand on 22.1.1980 and after negotiation, an agreement was signed wherein demand no.5 relating to payment of incentive bonus to the Finishers with general group of workers was settled and it was agreed that the settlement will be given effect to till 31.12.1982. Thereafter the T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangh submitted a 17 Point Charter of Demand on 22.1.1980 and after negotiation, an agreement was signed wherein demand no.5 relating to payment of incentive bonus to the Finishers with general group of workers was settled and it was agreed that the settlement will be given effect to till 31.12.1982. Due to various reasons T.P.M. became sick and as such was referred to the Board of Industrial Financing and Reconstruction (in short B.I.F.R.). During operation of the settlement, as per the settlement dtd.10.5.1980 (Annexure-12) one another dispute has been raised by one Chaturbhuja Behera and four other workmen of Finishing Department / Section and accordingly the appropriate Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of the four items of dispute which was registered as I.D. Case No.61 of 1980 in which written statement was filed by opposite party no.4, i.e. the management of T.P.M. in the year 1987. By virtue of an award passed in case No.1 of 1987 by B.I.F.R. the opposite party no.4 was declared as sick company under the provision of Sick Companies Act, 1985 and accordingly an award has been passed by the B.I.F.R. whereby and where under it has been directed that out of the three mills owned by T.P.M., the Government of Orissa purchased the moveable and immoveable property of Mill No.3 at Choudwar, earlier owned and operated by T.P.M. Company Ltd. for total consideration of Rs.6 crores. On 20th April, 1981 a Memorandum of Understanding (in short M.O.U.) was signed between the State Government and the petitioner company, i.e. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (in short BILT) by which the BILT had purchased the Mill No.3 with limited liabilities for total consideration amount of rs.12 crores followed by registered sale deed in the year 1994. In terms of the M.O.U. with the State Government, the new management entered into a settlement with the workmen agreeing therein that the permanent workmen on Roll as on 01.05.1991 of the said mill no.3 of T.P.M. would offer themselves for re-employment under the BILT for their appointment under its Roll on fresh terms and conditions. In terms of the M.O.U. with the State Government, the new management entered into a settlement with the workmen agreeing therein that the permanent workmen on Roll as on 01.05.1991 of the said mill no.3 of T.P.M. would offer themselves for re-employment under the BILT for their appointment under its Roll on fresh terms and conditions. The petitioner has entered its appearance before the Tribunal in I.D. case No.61 of 1981 in view of the changed circumstances and becoming the new owner of the management raising issue to decide the maintainability point first before delving in the dispute referred for adjudication and one joint memo was filed by both the parties before the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that except item no.1 of schedule of reference, they have no further dispute for adjudication with regard to the other three items and as such prayer has been made to confine the dispute to the first item of the schedule of reference for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal has passed award on 30th December 1991 whereby and where under it has been ordered by holding that the present workers are entitled to production incentive bonus / general group incentive equal to that of the time-rated finishers and the management of Titaghur Group of Ballarpur Industrial Ltd., Choudwar, the petitioner herein is liable to pay the same from 1969, to be paid within four months from the date of publication of the award. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that since a settlement has been arrived at regarding the dispute in question, as such the award passed in I.D. case No.61 of 1980 is not sustainable in the eye of law. According to the petitioner since the dispute has been resolved by way of a settlement, as such the Tribunal ought to have recorded the terms of settlement and should have disposed of the award since the terms of settlement was binding upon the parties in view of the provision as contained in Section 18 of the I.D. Act, 1947. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments those are Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa, reported in 2001 (1) LLJ 150 , The Srisilk Ltd. and Ors. Vrs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr, reported in AIR 1964 SC 160 , Management of Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments those are Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa, reported in 2001 (1) LLJ 150 , The Srisilk Ltd. and Ors. Vrs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr, reported in AIR 1964 SC 160 , Management of Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vrs. The Workmen and Anr, reported in AIR 1968 SC 585 , Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. ltd. Vrs. Jatin Chakravorty and Ors, reported in AIR 1960 SC 1012 , Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company ltd. Vrs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1981 SC 2163 , D. Macropollo and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vrs. D. Macropollo and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Employees Union and Otrs, reported in AIR 1958 SC 1018 and New Standard Engineering Company Ltd. Vrs. N.L. Abhayankar and Otrs, reported in 1978 LIC 712. 4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the opposite party – workmen has vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner by submitting that an award has been passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. case No.32 of 1969 and while answering the terms of reference by which the Tribunal has been asked to adjudicate upon the dispute as to whether the finishers of the T.P.M. Company ltd. No.3, Choudwar are entitled to production incentive bonus? If so, at what rate? According to the learned counsel there are two terms of reference which were to be answered by the Industrial Tribunal and the same has been answered vide award dtd.30th June 1971 holding the Finishers of T.P.M. Company Ltd. No.3, Choudwar entitled to the production incentive bonus and the management has been directed to extend the scheme under Exts.2 and 2/1 to the piece rated Finishers and to lay down the rates and conditions for the same, but for one pretext or the other the award has not been enforced and the management of T.P.M. No.3 has challenged the same before the Hon’ble Apex Court and while it was pending a settlement was arrived at not with the Union who was party to the dispute arises out of I.D. case No.32 of 1969, rather the settlement has been arrived at with another Union in the name of T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangha and as such it cannot be said that the settlement is binding upon the members of T.P.M. Workers Union. However, on the ground of that settlement the Special Leave Petition (in short S.L.P.), pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court has been withdrawn. It has been submitted that the moment the S.L.P. has been withdrawn by the T.P.M. No.3, the award passed by the Tribunal in I.D. case No.32 of 1969 has became final and as such under the provision of I.D. Act it has to be implemented, but the management has not implemented it in the garb of settlement and in the meanwhile the company has been declared to be sick under the provisions of Sick Companies Act, 1985 and the matter has been referred before the B.I.F.R. for adjudication and the B.I.F.R. after adjudicating the issue has passed an award on 21st December, 1990 which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby and where under out of three mills owned by T.P.M. the Government had purchased the moveable and immoveable property of Mill No.3 at Choudwar, Cuttack in the State of Orissa for total consideration amount of Rs.6 crores and thereafter by virtue of an M.O.U. entered on 20th April, 1991 the company has been taken over by the petitioner company, i.e. BILT who has purchased the company for total consideration amount of Rs.12 crores followed by registered sale deed in the year 1994. After taking over the management of erstwhile company a settlement was arrived at in between the workmen who have agreed for their re-employment on fresh terms and conditions, but the members of the Union who were party to the I.D. case No.32 of 1969 were not party to the settlement and as such the award which has been notified in the Official Gazette on 29th July 1970 has to be given effect in its letter and spirit, but when it has not been implemented the four workmen who were members of T.P.M. Workers Union, Choudwar have again raised a dispute regarding redressal of their grievances which ultimately been referred before the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication which has been registered as I.D. case No.61 of 1981 and the Tribunal after taking into consideration the previous award and considering the statutory provision has answered the terms of reference in favour of the workmen. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party – workmen that there is no infirmity in the award for the reasons that the settlement arrived at in between the management with the Union who were not party to the proceeding arises out of I.D. case No.32 of 1969 and as such the settlement is not binding upon them in view of the provision of Sec.18 of the I.D. Act, 1947 and when it has not been implemented, a fresh dispute has been raised along with grievance of non-disbursement of incentive bonus along with other three grievances which ultimately has been referred before the Tribunal for its adjudication and which has been adjudicated in their favour. 5. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length. Before appreciating the rival submission, it would be relevant to refer certain provisions as contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 along with authoritative pronouncements with respect to the contention in question. The relevant provision are Sec.16, Sec.17, Sec.17(A) and Section 18 which reads as follows:- “[16. Form of report or award.- (1) The report of a Board or Court shall be in writing and shall be signed by all the members of the Board or Court, as the case may be: Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent any member of the Board or Court from recording any minute of dissent from a report or from any recommendation made therein. (2) The award of a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by its presiding officer.] [17. Publication of reports and awards.- (1) Every report of a Board or Court together with any minute of dissent recorded therewith, every arbitration award and every award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government, be published in such manner as the appropriate Government thinks fit. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 17A, the award published under sub- section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever.] 17A. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 17A, the award published under sub- section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever.] 17A. Commencement of the award.- (1) An award (including an arbitration award) shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under section 17: Provided that-- (a) if the appropriate Government is of opinion, in any case where the award has been given by a Labour Court or Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute to which it is a party; or (b) if the Central Government is of opinion, in any case where the award has been given by a National Tribunal, that it will be inexpedient on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice to give effect to the whole or any part of the award, the appropriate Government, or as the case may be, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the award shall not become enforceable on the expiry of the said period of thirty days. (2) Where any declaration has been made in relation to an award under the proviso to sub- section (1), the appropriate Government or the Central Government may, within ninety days from the date of publication of the award under section 17, make an order rejecting or modifying the award, and shall, on the first available opportunity, lay the award together with a copy of the order before the Legislature of the State, if the order has been made by a State Government, or before Parliament, if the order has been made by the Central Government. (3) Where any award as rejected or modified by an order made under sub- section (2) is laid before the Legislature of a State or before Parliament, such award shall become enforceable on the expiry of fifteen days from the date on which it is so laid; and where no order under sub- section (2) is made in pursuance of a declaration under the proviso to sub- section (1), the award shall become enforceable on the expiry of the period of ninety days referred to in sub- section (2). (4) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (1) and sub- section (3) regarding the enforceability of an award, the award shall come into operation with effect from such date as may be specified therein, but where no date is so specified, it shall come into operation on the date when the award becomes enforceable under sub- section (1) or sub- section (3), as the case may be.]” Thus it is evident that the award once made and published under the provision of Section 16 and 17 it has to be enforced on expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Sec.18 of the I.D. Act, 1947 reads as follows:- 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.- (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. [(2) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), an arbitration award] which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.] (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act 5 [or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub- section (3A) of section 10A] or 6 an award 7 of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on— (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, 5 arbitrator,] 8 Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.” In this context the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sirsilk Ltd. Vrs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1964 SC 160 needs to be referred wherein the proposition has been laid down regarding what steps should be taken by the Government when after conclusion of the proceeding related to adjudication of a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and an award has been passed but not published U/s.17(1) of the I.D. Act and in the meanwhile a settlement has been arrived at in between the parties to the dispute which has became operative, then Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that though Sec.17(1) is mandatory and the Government is bound to publish the award received by it from the Industrial Tribunal, the situation arising in a case where the settlement between the parties have been arrived at after the award has been sent to the Government but before its publication is of exceptional nature and may lead to a conflict between a settlement U/s.18(1) and an award binding U/s.18(3) on publication and requires reconciliation between Section 18(1) and Sec.18(3). In such a situation the only way to reconcile the two provisions is to withhold the publication of the award, as a binding settlement has already come into force in order to avoid possible conflict between a binding settlement U/s.18(1) and the binding award U/s.18(3). In such a situation the Government ought not to publish the award U/s.17(1) and in cases where Government is going to publish it, it can be directed not to publish the award in view of the binding settlement arrived at between the parties U/s.18(1) with respect to the very matters which were the subject matter of adjudication under the award. This would not in any way affect the mandatory nature of the provision in Sec.17(1), for the Government would ordinarily have to publish the award but for the special situation arising in such cases. This would not in any way affect the mandatory nature of the provision in Sec.17(1), for the Government would ordinarily have to publish the award but for the special situation arising in such cases. Thus it is evident that in a situation like where the award having not been published under the provision of Section 17(1), the Government should not publish the award in order to avoid the conflict in between the statutory provisions as contained in Section 18(1) and Section 18(3), but the situation which emerged in this case that is both the awards, i.e. the award passed in I.D. Case No.32 of 1969 and I.D. Case No.61 of 1980 has already been published pursuant to the provision as contained in Sec.17(1) and as such it has got binding effect over and above the settlement which is the simple interpretation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirsilk’s case (supra). The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amalgamated Coffee Estates Ltd., and others Vrs. Their Workmen and others, reported in 1965 –II – L.L.J. 110. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amalgamated Coffee Estates Ltd., and others Vrs. Their Workmen and others, reported in 1965 –II – L.L.J. 110. The fact of the said case is that dispute having been referred before the Tribunal for its adjudication and thereafter the award was pronounced, the award having been challenged reached before the Hon’ble Apex Court under its appellate jurisdiction and while the appeal was pending there, it was urged by the parties that the dispute had been compromised and in terms of the settlement an application was made to dispose of the appeal in terms of the settlement and the Hon’ble Apex Court in order to verify the terms of settlement has directed the Tribunal to apprise the court, in terms thereof the Tribunal has filed an affidavit that the settlement has been arrived at in between the parties, but however an objection was raised on behalf of some of the workmen that the finding of the tribunal on the issue sent down to it was incorrect and after taking into consideration the rival submission of the parties the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the tribunal has carefully considered the issue sent down to it and thereby declined to differ with its conclusion and accordingly two appeals have been disposed of in terms of the settlement by holding therein that even those estates which were not parties to the settlement have shown their willingness to abide by it and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to accept the submission in the interest of uniformity and industrial peace by holding therein that the settlement should bind all estates which were represented before the special tribunal. In the case of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vrs. In the case of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vrs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1981 SC 2163 there the fact was that a reference was referred by the tribunal on 22nd March 1968 and was pending adjudication when on 18th February 1970 the company filed an application stating therein that a settlement had been reached between it and in terms of the settlement the prayer has been made to adjudicate or dispose of the terms of the reference and accordingly the reference was answered in accordance with the terms of settlement but however the tribunal has given a finding that the settlement was not just and proper. However the view of the tribunal has been reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground that the settlement since has been arrived at in between the majority of the workmen and merely on account of objection having been raised by the minority of workmen it cannot be said to be unfair and accordingly Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to dispose of the appeal in terms of the settlement. Thus it is evident that the position with respect to binding effect of the settlement as has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments as has been referred herein above it is evident that if the settlement has to be given its effect the Government should not have notified the award in pursuance to the provision as contained in Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After going through the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sirsilk Ltd. (supra) wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that if the parties have arrived at a settlement, then the matter has to be resolved, but if award has been passed but not notified in the Official Gazette pursuant to the provision as contained in Section 17(1) of the I.D. Act then the Government should defer the date of notification of the award. This proposition goes to suggest that once the award has been notified in the Official Gazette pursuant to the provision as contained in Sec.17(1) and thereafter the settlement has arrived at, the same will not be binding upon the parties. 6. This proposition goes to suggest that once the award has been notified in the Official Gazette pursuant to the provision as contained in Sec.17(1) and thereafter the settlement has arrived at, the same will not be binding upon the parties. 6. In the light of this statutory provision and authoritative pronouncements now the fact of the case needs to be analyzed in order to appreciated the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The admitted position in this case is that a dispute has been raised by T.P.M. Workers Union to provide the members of the Union the benefit of incentive bonus scheme and the dispute has ultimately culminated into I.D. case No.32 of 1969 wherein the following reference has been made:- “Whether the Finishers of T.P.M. Company Ltd. No.3, Choudwar are entitled to production incentive bonus? If so, at what rate?” The tribunal after appreciating the rival submissions of the parties has answered the reference in the following terms which is being quoted here under as:- “Hence I find that the Finishers of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. No.3, Choudwar are entitled to the production incentive bonus and that the management should extend the scheme under Exts.2 and 2/1 to the piece-rated Finishers and should lay down the rates and conditions for the same.” The petitioner who was management in I.D. case No.32 of 1969 has challenged the award which ultimately gone before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction and when the S.L.P. was pending there, the management of T.P.M. Mill No.3 (the erstwhile management) has entered into a settlement to extend the benefit of incentive bonus with T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangha and accordingly a settlement was arrived at on 28.6.1974 as would be evident from Annexure-10 by which the agreement was arrived at to the effect that the Finishers would get an incentive bonus at the rate of 15% of the basic earning of the individual Finisher on their piece-rated earning, retrospectively w.e.f. 01.09.1973. Thus it is evident that the settlement was not arrived at in between the same parties, i.e. not in between the management of T.P.M. Company Ltd. and the T.P.M. Workers Union, Choudwar, rather the settlement was entered into in between the management of T.P.M. Company Ltd. with T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangha. Thus it is evident that the settlement was not arrived at in between the same parties, i.e. not in between the management of T.P.M. Company Ltd. and the T.P.M. Workers Union, Choudwar, rather the settlement was entered into in between the management of T.P.M. Company Ltd. with T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangha. The further admitted position is that the T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangha submitted a 17 Point Charter demand as would be evident from Annexure-11 to the writ petition which includes payment of incentive bonus to the Finishers with general group of workers as contained in demand no.5 which was also settled by virtue of a negotiation held on 10.5.1980 but the same is also with T.P.M. Mazdoor Sangha and not with the T.P.M. Workers Union, the Union who has represented the workmen in I.D. case No.32 of 1969. Thereafter the T.P.M. Company ltd. became sick and the matter was taken up by the competent authority under the Sick Companies Act and accordingly the matter was referred before the B.I.F.R. for adjudication of the issue and accordingly a case being case No.1 of 1987 has been registered by the B.I.F.R. in which an award was passed on 21.12.1990 by virtue of the same out of three Mills owned by T.P.M. Company Ltd. the Government of Orissa has purchased the movable and immovable property of Mill No.3 situated at Choudwar, Cuttack in the State of Orissa for total consideration of Rs.6 crores. The State of Orissa has shown its willingness to transfer the management, assets and liabilities of the T.P.M. Companies Ltd. and the present petitioner of this writ petition has entered into an M.O.U. on 20th April, 1991 by which the present petitioner has purchased the Mill No.3 for total consideration amount of Rs.12 crores followed by a registered sale deed in the year 1994 and after taking over the management of the T.P.M. Company Ltd. Mill No.3, the new management entered into a settlement with the workmen in which agreement has been arrived at to the effect that the permanent workmen on Roll would offer themselves for re-employment under the present petitioner for their payment under its Roll on fresh terms and conditions. The present petitioner has also entered its appearance in I.D. case No.61 of 1981 making a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the dispute and the Industrial Tribunal ultimately has passed an award on 30th December 1991 whereby and where under the terms of four reference that are:- (1) Whether the demands of the workmen of Finishing Department of M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. No.3 Mill, Choudwar, Cuttack for introduction of General Group incentive scheme for all Finishers is legal and / or justified? If so, what should be the detail? (2) Whether the demands of the workmen of Finishing Department of M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. No.3 Mill, Choudwar, Cuttack for giving appropriate designation to all workmen undertaking different operation is legal and / or justified? If so, what should be the designations of all workmen? (3) Whether the demands of the workmen of Finishing Department of M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. No.3 Mill, Choudwar, Cuttack for introducing piece rate wages for workmen engaged in loading and unloading operations in the Department is legal and / or justified? If so, what should be the details? (4) Whether the demands of the workmen of Finishing Department of M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. No.3 Mill, Choudwar, Cuttack for reducing the weight of bundles the 45 Kgs. is legal and / or justified? If so, what should be the details?” These four references have been answered in the following terms:- “In the result, I hold that the reference is maintainable and the present workers are entitled to production incentive bonus / general group incentive equal to that of the time-rated finishers and the Management of M/s. Thapper Group of Bolarpur Industries Ltd., Choudwar is liable to pay the same from 1969.” The arrear has been directed to be paid within four months from the date of publication of the award. We have gone through the finding given by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has taken note of the earlier award and also considered the binding effect of the settlement arrived at in between the Management and the Mazdoor Sangha and has given a finding that the said settlement is not binding on the workers of the Finishing Department. We have gone through the finding given by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has taken note of the earlier award and also considered the binding effect of the settlement arrived at in between the Management and the Mazdoor Sangha and has given a finding that the said settlement is not binding on the workers of the Finishing Department. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the Management has been paying general group incentive bonus at the rate of 40 and 45% of the salaries to the other employees but not to the employees of Finishing Department and the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced before it has came to the conclusion that the work of the Finishers is to pack and bundle the finished papers for sale in the market and as such why the workers working in the Finishers Department will be denied to equal percentage of bonus as is paid to others, namely time-rated finishers who are doing the same nature of work. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that since the Management of M/s. Thapper Group of Ballarpur Industries Ltd., the present petitioner has purchased all the assets and liabilities described in the M.O.U., as such in view of the provision of Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act and since the ownership of management of an undertaking is transferred, hence the workers working in the establishment rendering continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provision of Section 25F, as if the workman had been retrenched. However Section 25FF also prescribes some exceptions under clause (a), (b) and (c) but no evidence has been adduced that the present workers who have rendered their services have not continuously worked and as such the present petitioner has been held liable to pay the same and accordingly the liability has been extended upon M/s. Thapper Group of Ballarpur Industries Ltd., the present petitioner. Thus from the detail discussion having been made by us herein above regarding the statutory provision vis-à-vis the factual aspect of the case, now it is to be examined as to whether the settlement dtd.28.6.1974 has got binding effect or not? Thus from the detail discussion having been made by us herein above regarding the statutory provision vis-à-vis the factual aspect of the case, now it is to be examined as to whether the settlement dtd.28.6.1974 has got binding effect or not? According to us these settlements have got no binding effect for the reasons that (i) Sec.18 divides settlements and awards into two categories. The first category consists of settlements which are arrived at otherwise than in the course of any conciliation proceedings and the arbitration awards under Sec.10-A. This category is envisaged by sub-sections (1) and (2). The second category consists of settlements which are arrived at in the conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer or the Board and the awards of the adjudicatory authorities, i.e. the Labour Courts, Tribunals or the National Tribunals. The binding effect of settlements and awards falling under these two categories is also different. The employer is a common party in both types of settlements and awards, but workmen, who get bound by settlements and awards falling under the first category are only those workmen, who were parties to the agreement in the case of settlement or were parties to the reference made to a private arbitrator. This case, however is different in respect of settlement and award falling under the second category. The admitted fact of the case is that the opposite party – workmen admittedly were not party to the settlement and the settlement has been arrived at after passing of two consecutive awards, i.e. one in the year 1971 and the other in the year 1981 and thereafter settlement has been arrived at in the year 1991 and in the said settlement opposite party – workmen were not parties and as such according to us the settlement arrived at as has been referred in this writ petition will have no binding effect upon the parties. (ii) The ratio laid down in the case of Sirsilk Ltd. (supra) which has elaborately been discussed by us herein above and on the basis of the proposition laid down it is very much clear when a settlement will said to have binding effect and as per the discussion made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment in a situation like where the award having not been published under the provision of Section 17(1), the Government should not publish the award in order to avoid the conflict in between the statutory provisions as contained in Section 18(1) and Section 18(3), but the situation which emerged in this case is that both the awards, i.e. the award passed in I.D. Case No.32 of 1969 and I.D. Case No.61 of 1980 have already been published pursuant to the provision as contained in Sec.17(1) and as such it has got binding effect over and above the settlement which is the interpretation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirsilk’s case (supra). (iii) The admitted position in this case is that the first award is passed answering the terms of reference on 30th June 1971 which was notified in the Official Gazette and also got its finality after withdrawal of the S.L.P. from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since it has been notified, hence in view of the provision as contained U/s.18(2) is binding upon the parties. (iv) The present petitioner has entered into the arena of dispute in I.D. case No.61 of 1980 after becoming the owner of the company by virtue of its transfer and the case has been contested and it was contested at length with a specific plea that since the settlement has been arrived at, as such the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to pass an award. But this has been negated by the Tribunal while passing the final award by holding therein that the settlement arrived at is not binding upon the present workmen who were not party to the agreement or the settlement and this finding according to us does not suffer with infirmity. So far as the other judgments upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as the other judgments upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. On the basis of these reasons we decline ourselves from interfering with the award because according to us there is no error apparent on the face of the record and as such applying the ratio laid down in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K. S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 SC 477 wherein it has been held that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not exercise its power to review the fact finding giving by the Tribunal after appreciation of the factual aspect produced before it, otherwise also it will be said that the High Court has acted as appellate court. The proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob (supra) still holds good and in this respect reference may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270 wherein their Lordships while discussing the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of showing interference with the finding of the Tribunal has been pleased to hold after placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vrs. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447 as follows: “17. In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of his Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at p. 1301 of the report as follows: (SCC p. 864, para 7) “The special civil application preferred by the appellant was admittedly an application under Article 227 and it is, therefore, material only to consider the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under that article. Did the High Court have jurisdiction in an application under Article 227 to disturb the findings of fact reached by the District Court? It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath that the ... power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bose v. Commr. of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” However the High Court can interfere if there is any error of jurisdiction or if there is perversity in the finding but here since there is no error of jurisdiction and also there is no perversity in the finding, in our considered view there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, as such there is no need of interference. Accordingly the issue framed by us is answered. 7. Accordingly the issue framed by us is answered. 7. After affirming the award, we have also examined the liability part as to who will disburse the consequential benefits, whether it is the State of Orissa or the present petitioner. In order to adjudicate this issue we have gone through the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 2001-I-LLJ 150 wherein their Lordships after taking into consideration various aspects of the matter has been pleased to hold at paragraph 7 and 8 as follows:- “7. The correspondence between the Appellants and the State of Orissa consists of letters dated 5th March, 1991, 13th March, 1991 and 16th March, 1991. Under the letters dated 5th March, 1991 and 13th March, 1991, the Appellants offer to purchase Mill No. 3 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letters. The State of Orissa by the letter dated 16th March, 1991 accepts those terms and conditions. These terms and conditions are then incorporated in an MOU, which is signed between the parties on 20th April, 1991. The relevant clauses of the MOU are clauses (1), (2) and (3), which reads as follows : 1. That the State Government hereby agrees to transfer the assets of TPM-3 situated at Choudwar, Distt. Cuttack, State of Orissa in favour of BILT for a total sum of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees twelve crores only) along with all other/deferred liabilities as detailed in Clause 3 of this MOU hereinafter, so as to discharge the liability of TPM-3, Bank’s working capital dues, workers’ dues as per the award of BIFR and the pending dues of the State and Central Government. I. The BILT shall pay Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees six crores only) within 7 (seven) days from the date of signing of this MOU as advance towards and being the part payment of total sum agreed as above. II. The BILT shall pay the balance amount of Rs. I. The BILT shall pay Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees six crores only) within 7 (seven) days from the date of signing of this MOU as advance towards and being the part payment of total sum agreed as above. II. The BILT shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 6 Crores after it receives the requisite permission under the MRTP Act for the acquistion of the assets of the said TPM-3 from the concerned Authority duly constituted under the said Act and the State Government hereby assures that it will provide its good offices to BILT and will endeavour so that BILT’s application to obtain requisite approval under the MRTP Act for acquiring the assets of TPM-3 is expeditiously granted. 2. That the award dated 21.12.1990 passed by the BIFR has provided that an amount of Rs. 1.6 Crores is to be paid to the workman of TPM-3 for the period till January 31, 1989 and whereas in accordance with the letter No.7956/I-IX-HI-28/91dated the 21st March, 1991 issued by the State Government BILT has started the process of direct negotiations with the workman of TPM-3 for a settlement in respect of their claims and wages for the period after January 31, 1989, the parties hereto hereby declare that it is their intention and objective that a just and fair settlement should be reached with the workmen thereby covering all the issues pertaining to the terms of employment of workmen for the period commencing on and from the 1st February, 1989 till the date of revival of TPM-3. It is also agreed by the State Government that it will issue appropriate directions to the Labour Deptt. To assist and extend full cooperation to BILT enabling them to arrive at a peaceful and amicable settlement. 3. That the award of the BIFR being Annexure -I on pages 5 and 10 thereof has spelt out the amount of consideration payable for the assets and to meet the liabilities of TPM-3 and in accordance with which the parties hereto hereby mutually agree that the liabilities of the TPM have to be discharged as under : Description Amount a. The sale price Rs. 6 Crores of TPM-3 b. Working capital Rs. 2.40 CRORES advance being payable to the banks. c. Dues payable Rs. 7 Crores to the State Government and the Central Government. 6 Crores of TPM-3 b. Working capital Rs. 2.40 CRORES advance being payable to the banks. c. Dues payable Rs. 7 Crores to the State Government and the Central Government. This amount has not been quantified but is estimated to be in the region of Rs.7 Crores. d. Dues payable Rs. 1.60 to the workmen for the period up to 31.1.1989. e. Dues payable as a consequence of certain proceedings/litigations relating to TPM-3 pending before different Courts/Authorities. This amount has Yet not been estimated. f. To reimburse the amount of Capital Gains Tax if any arising as a result of sale of TPM-3. In the absence of any adjudication order as may be passed hereafter by the concerned Income Tax Authority, the liability under this head is not capable of being quantified/estimated and as such is undertaken to be payable in to in principle. However, the dues in respect of the claims and wages of the workmen of TPM-3 for the period subsequent to 31.1.1989 will be determined by direct negotiations with the workmen and such liability is undertaken in principle to be paid by BILT accordingly. Further, in accordance with the terms of the said award and the terms as contained in the Letter of Acceptance No.7006/I-IX-III-28/91 dated 16.3.1991 issued by the State Government to BILT, BILT shall pay the balance dues of the State Government, if any, free of interest to the State Government and Central Excise dues to the Central Government free of interest after the expiry of 10 (ten) years from the date of commencement of production by BILT at the said TPM-3. Further, it is made absolutely clear that the total consideration of Rs. 12 Crores mentioned in Clause No. 1 above, is included in the break up shown in clause No. 3 above, which represents the total estimated liability of BILT." Clause 10 is also relevant. Further, it is made absolutely clear that the total consideration of Rs. 12 Crores mentioned in Clause No. 1 above, is included in the break up shown in clause No. 3 above, which represents the total estimated liability of BILT." Clause 10 is also relevant. It reads as follows ; "That the State Government hereby clarifies that save and except the liabilities as are mentioned in the letter dated 5.3.91 (vide Annexure - IV) and letter dated 13.3.1991 (vide Annexure - V) addressed by BILT to the State Government, no other liability shall accrue to BILT as a consequence of its purchasing the said TPM-3." Thus it is only the liabilities which are mentioned in the letters dated 5th March, 1991 and 13th March, 1991 and the liabilities mentioned in clause (3), which are to be borne by the Appellant. All other liabilities remain to be discharged by the State of Orissa. Liabilities mentioned in clause (3) of the MOU are those agreed to be taken by the Appellants in the letters dated 5th March, 1991 and 13th March, 1991. Reading of clauses (1) and (3) shows that the liability to make payment to the 4th Respondent has not been passed on to or taken over by the Appellants. 8. It was sought to be suggested that under the letter dated 5th March, 1991, the Appellants were to pay all dues of the workers up to December 1998. It was submitted that the term "worker" would also include the 4th Respondent though he was not a workman. We are unable to accept this submission. Even in the letter of 5th March, 1991, it is clarified that the dues of the workmen are to the extent of Rs. 1.60 Crores. This liability of Rs. 1.60 Crores is the same as had been set out in the Scheme as being labour dues of Rs. 160 lakhs. This liability is the same as that provided in clause 3(ii) of the MOU. It could not be disputed that Appellants have paid this sum of Rs. 1.60 Crores to the Workmen. The claim of Respondent No. 4 is in addition to and over and above the claim of the Workmen in the sum of Rs. 1.60 crores. 160 lakhs. This liability is the same as that provided in clause 3(ii) of the MOU. It could not be disputed that Appellants have paid this sum of Rs. 1.60 Crores to the Workmen. The claim of Respondent No. 4 is in addition to and over and above the claim of the Workmen in the sum of Rs. 1.60 crores. The liability of the arrears of salary payable to the 4th Respondent was not taken over by the Appellants even though under the Scheme the State of Orissa had taken over the liability to pay all dues of the employees upto the date of the sanction of the Scheme. Thus dues of employees upto December 1990 were payable by the State of Orissa. This would include arrears of salary payable to the 4th Respondent. In this view of the matter the High Court was wrong in directing the Appellants to pay this amount. To that extent the order of the High Court is required to be and is set aside. It is clarified that the amounts due to the 4th Respondent are payable by the State of Orissa.” In view of the dispute having been adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court regarding fixing of liability, we are also disposing of this writ petition in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court by modifying the Award which is as follows:- After taking into consideration all these aspects we are inclined to interfere with the award passed in I.D. Case No.61 of 1980 and modify the award to the extent that the dues of employees up to December 1990, which is subject matter of dispute, are payable by the State of Orissa and the dues after the said period and up to the period till the workmen were on roll of service shall have to be paid by the petitioner – management. In terms of this direction we are disposing of the writ petition with direction to the opposite party no.2 to ensure compliance of the order within reasonable period, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.