ORDER : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. The Management of the Assam Carbon Products Limited, Birkuchi challenges the Award dated 25.1.2018 (Annexure-10) in the Reference Case No. 2/2017, whereby, the learned Labour Court, Guwahati while answering the reference has concluded in favour of the workmen and declared that the workmen are entitled to Rs. 1 Crore, as is committed, under Clause 2(d) [Page-31] of the Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) dated 21.2.2012 (Annexure-1). 2. The concerned Clause 2(d) being relevant, is extracted herein below for ready reference:— “………………… The strict adherence to NPC norms and achieving and maintaining agreed productivity Norms from the date of resumption of operations. Management, as a goodwill gesture, will offer, for the retrospective period one lump sum payment towards both of the 2(two) Charter of Demands and all others financial demands in any form as on the date of these settlement [the total financial implication on the company being restricted to Rs. 1 crore (one crore only)] as full and final settlement, as a special case and without creating any precedence. Such lump sum payments will be disbursed in 4 quarterly installments commencing after workmen have achieved and maintained the productivity norms as agreed above continuously for 3 (three) month and thereafter every quarter. Any failure in achieving and maintaining the agreed productivity norms in any month will disentitle the workmen to such lump sum amount and management will deduct the lump sum amount from the wages of workmen in the same manner as it is paid. This is because, this amount is being paid to workmen as a goodwill gesture based on the assurance, that the agreed productivity norms will be achieved and maintained during the operation of this agreement and subsequently thereafter without any interruption until further agreement is made. …………..” 3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N Sarma reads the settlement clause to project that it was a conditional offer for payment of incentive as a special case and the extra payment was dependent upon achievement of the production target continuously for 3 months, with repeat assessment every quarter thereafter. In the event of failure of the workmen to achieve the production target, the Management was not liable to pay the extra benefits. 4. However, misconstruing the conditional offer under clause 2(d) of the MOS, the learned Labour Court has declared that the workmen are entitled to the lump sum incentive of Rs. In the event of failure of the workmen to achieve the production target, the Management was not liable to pay the extra benefits. 4. However, misconstruing the conditional offer under clause 2(d) of the MOS, the learned Labour Court has declared that the workmen are entitled to the lump sum incentive of Rs. 1 crore, under the impugned Award dated 25.1.2018 (Annexure-10). 5. The senior Counsel submits that the conciliatory settlement is declared to be a camouflage and it was assumed by the Court that the workmen had no understanding of the conditional settlement. If this be the position, Mr. Sarma questions how the same MOS (Annexure-1) is made the basis, for granting relief to the workmen in the much belated conciliation reference. 6. In view of above, let Notice returnable in 4 weeks be issued. The petitioner to ensure service on both the respondents, by registered post. 7. In the interim, having regard to the purport of the clause 2(d) [Page-31] of the MOS dated 21.2.2012 (Annexure-1), the impugned Award dated 25.1.2018 (Annexure-10), is stayed until the next date. The Registry should requisition the records of the Reference Case No. 2/2017, from the Labour Court, Guwahati.