JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Despite indulgences granted earlier and even after last order dated 03.03.2017, no one appears for the respondent-workmen, though names of their counsels are reflected in the cause list also. 3. The writ petition seeking quashing of the Award dated 01.12.1995 (pronounced on 15.02.1996) made in Reference Case No. 14 of 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, was dismissed as not pressed by the order dated 22.09.2003. Upon review, the order of the dismissal was recalled in Civil Review No. 88 of 2007 by order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however with a condition that revival of the writ petition would be subject to the payment made in terms of order dated 15.04.1998 till the month of June and if such amount has not been paid within four weeks, an affidavit in respect thereof shall be filed by applicant- Company within four weeks. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Mishra, has filed an affidavit on 01.03.2017. According to the petitioner, a one time settlement has been entered with the respondent workman on 10.11.2009, as per which an amount of Rs. 11,56,460/- was paid to the workman. 4. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 03.03.2017, the following order was passed:- “Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 1.3.2017 in compliance of the order passed in Civil Review No. 88 of 2007 dated 29.7.2016 and in terms of the order dated 15.4.1998 itself in the instant writ petition where under petitioner was directed to make payment of wages to the workman under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman has arrived at a amicable settlement of the instant dispute with the petitioner and a memorandum of settlement has also been executed between them in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The terms of settlement are reproduced here under:- “1. This settlement shall be deemed to be a settlement as defined under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The workman has abandoned his claim of reinstatement and instead has desired a lump sum adhoc compensation for loss of his employment. 3. The terms of settlement are reproduced here under:- “1. This settlement shall be deemed to be a settlement as defined under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The workman has abandoned his claim of reinstatement and instead has desired a lump sum adhoc compensation for loss of his employment. 3. It is also agreed that Sri Charanjit Singh would be paid an adhoc amount of Rs.11,56,460/- (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty six thousand four hundred sixty only) including his gratuity. This payment would be subject to deduction of Income tax as per law, which is amounting to Rs.2,56,160/-. The net lump sum adhoc compensation payable to Mr. Charanjit Singh would be Rs. 9,00,300/- after deduction of aforesaid tax amount of Rs.2,56,160/-. 4. It is further agreed by and between the parties that the payment of the aforesaid net amount of Rs.9,00,300/- (Rupees nine lakhs three hundred only) is in full and final settlement of all his claims arising out of the award. The workman has given up claim for his reinstatement or re- employment and the company would also not reinstate him or re-employ him as he is being paid lump sum adhoc compensation for loss of his employment. The workman has also given up claim of employment of his wards in the Company. 5. It is also agreed by and between the parties that the company may file an application in the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Civil Review of 88 of 2007 along with a copy of this settlement, praying to the Hon'ble High Court that the said Review Petition may be disposed of in the light of the compromise agreement between the parties and the workman if necessary would cooperate in the same. 6. The workman agrees that he along with the company would jointly file a application in M.J. Case No.1 of 2009 before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur along with a copy of the compromise agreement praying to the Court that in view of the compromise the aforesaid M.J. Case may be disposed of. 7. The workman also agrees that he would cooperate with the company for quick and satisfactory disposal of criminal complaint in C2 Case No. 3063 of 2008 and subsequent criminal misc. 7. The workman also agrees that he would cooperate with the company for quick and satisfactory disposal of criminal complaint in C2 Case No. 3063 of 2008 and subsequent criminal misc. petition No. 1546 of 2008 pending in the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court as the time taken for implementation of the award was because of delayed information given by the workman to the company about the dismissal of Writ Petition CWJC No. 1541 of 1996(R) and pendency of Civil Review case No. 88 of 2007 in the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. 8. That the Company would pay to Sri Charanjit Singh the amount as aforesaid by an account payee cheque drawn in his favour on the Punjab National Bank, Jamshedpur and on receipt of the said payment he will not have any kind of claim for any thing in respect of employment/non employment , arrears of wages etc. from the Company. 9. In so far his provident fund dues are concerned, he has already been paid advance from his total provident fund dues leaving a balance of Rs. 17,538/- (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred thirty eight only) inclusive of interest up to 31.10.2009, which is being paid separately. The aforesaid payment is in full and final settlement of provident fund dues of Mr. Charanjit Singh, Workman”. It is submitted that in the civil review petition also despite service of notice the workman failed to appear. He has earlier appeared in the writ petition and filed counter affidavit before the settlement was arrived. However the name of learned counsel for the Respondent workman are not reflected in the cause list. Let the name of Mrs. Sheela Prasad, Mr. R. Krishna & Mr. Ajit Kumar appear as counsel for the Respondent in the cause list, henceforth. The matter is of the year 1996, therefore, let it be placed on next Friday i.e. 10.3.2017 as an unfixed matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that receipt of the cost of Rs.3000/- deposited in JHALSA has been filed today. ” 5. However, as observed earlier, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-workman even today. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the settlement arrived between the parties, the workman may not be interested to pursue the matter any further. ” 5. However, as observed earlier, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-workman even today. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the settlement arrived between the parties, the workman may not be interested to pursue the matter any further. As per the terms of the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that an application would be filed in Civil Review No. 88 of 2007 along with a copy of settlement with a prayer to dispose of the petition in light of the compromise agreement between the parties and the workman, if necessary, would co-operate in the same. The workman also agreed not to make any kind of claim for any thing in respect of employment/non employment, arrears of wages etc. from the company on receipt of the admitted amount agreed between the parties. It is submitted that therefore there is no lis alive between the parties. The instant writ petition, therefore, can itself be disposed of in the light of the terms of the settlement. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the statements made in the supplementary affidavit dated 01.03.2017 enclosing Memorandum of Settlement between the petitioner and the respondent-Workman. The terms of settlement have been reproduced in the order dated 03.03.2017 quoted hereinabove. The Settlement has been entered into between the workman and the representatives of the Management in the presence of two witnesses with a copy to the Secretary to the Department of Labour, Employment & Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, The Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi and The Deputy Labour Commissioner & Conciliation Officer, Jamshedpur. Perusal of the terms of settlement indicate that the parties have resolved to settle the dispute outside the Court on receipt of the agreed amount by the Workman. The terms of settlement also indicate that parties would move the Court in Civil Review Petition for its disposal in terms of the settlement. The Workman would also co-operate for quick and satisfactory disposal of the criminal complaint in C2 Case No. 3063 of 2008 and in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1546 of 2008 pending in this Court. The terms of settlement also indicate that parties would move the Court in Civil Review Petition for its disposal in terms of the settlement. The Workman would also co-operate for quick and satisfactory disposal of the criminal complaint in C2 Case No. 3063 of 2008 and in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1546 of 2008 pending in this Court. It further indicates that parties were aware that the implementation of the award was delayed because of delayed information about the dismissal of the writ petition CWJC No. 1541 of 1996(R) and pendency of Civil Review Case No. 88 of 2007. 8. All these facts recited in Memorandum of Settlement go to show that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties outside the Court. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in light of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 19.11.2009.