JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 14.08.2015 in AGA No.256 of 2014 confirming the order made in A.G.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2014 and quash the same.) 1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the 3rd respondent in A.G.A.No.256 of 2014, dated 14.08.2015, confirming the order made in G.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2014, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner had joined the services of the 1st respondent Management on 11.02.1972 as Grade-3 Machine Operator and had rendered 38 years of service. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010. The retirement benefits of the petitioner, including Gratuity, payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, were calculated as per his last drawn wages . According to the petitioner, he had received a sum of Rs.22,000/- as salary at the time of his retirement and as per his last drawn salary, the petitioner had to receive a sum of Rs.4,82,307/- as gratuity but the 1st respondent Management had paid only Rs.2,83,795/- as gratuity. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had sent a notice to the 1st respondent Management, but the first respondent Management failed to pay the balance gratuity amount of Rs.1,98,512/- In this regard, the petitioner filed an application in G.A.No.55/2012 before the second respondent, under Section 4(1) (a) of the Gratuity Act, seeking for the payment of balance gratuity amount from the first respondent Management. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent, without considering the documents and valid points raised by the petitioner, had dismissed the above application filed in G.A.No55/2012 vide order dated 16.06.2014. Aggrieved against such dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.G.A.No.256 of 2014 before the third respondent and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2015. Further, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2015 seeking the first respondent to produce the original salary register and attendance register of the petitioner. But the same was dismissed along with A.G.A.No.256 of 2014 vide order dated 14.08.2015. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Further, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2015 seeking the first respondent to produce the original salary register and attendance register of the petitioner. But the same was dismissed along with A.G.A.No.256 of 2014 vide order dated 14.08.2015. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has not considered the fact that even though the Settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was signed on 02.04.2010, it came into force from 01.03.2010 itself, i.e. the specific period when the Settlement came into force, the petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent Management. 6. Moreover, it is the further contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent/Appellate Authority failed to consider that the 2nd respondent, without deciding the salary of the petitioner as per clause 15 of the Ma.Sa.As-3 had misconstrued the clause 16 of the Ma.Sa.Aa-3 and has fixed the petitioner''s salary as Rs.10,400/-. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent failed to consider that the 2nd respondent had misconstrued and wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the leave period is from 01.10.2009 to 01.04.2010, whereas it is from 01.10.2009 to 28.02.2010 and the Settlement Agreement came into force from 01.03.2010 itself. 7. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have wrongly connected the petitioner''s case with that one of Kone Elevators India Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour II, reported in 2005 (1) LLN 960, which is totally different from the present facts of the case. According to the petitioner, at the time of implementation of the Settlement, dated 02.04.2010, the petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent Management and therefore, his salary should be fixed only on that basis. 8. It is his further contention that the respondent Management had wrongly concluded that the employees are entitled to calculations of 26 days will be reckoned as a month not only for arriving the pay but also for calculation of length of service. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the interference of this Court in the order passed by the third respondent dated 14.08.2015 in A.G.A.No.256 of 2014. 9. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the interference of this Court in the order passed by the third respondent dated 14.08.2015 in A.G.A.No.256 of 2014. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Management submitted that the retirement benefits of the petitioner, including Gratuity, payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, was calculated in accordance with law and the petitioner had also received the said benefits without any demur or objections. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the respondent Management has entered into a Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 02.04.2010 with the LMV Workers & Staff Union to revise the pay scale to the employees. As per Clause 1 of the said Settlement, the agreement is applicable only to 777 employees, who were on the rolls of the Company on the date of signing the Agreement i.e. 02.04.2010. He further stated that the petitioner under the misconception that the Settlement covers him, has sought for the aforesaid relief. 10. According to the respondent Management, the Settlement is not applicable to the petitioner, as he had retired prior to the Agreement date i.e. on 31.03.2010 and was not an employee of the Company on the date of Settlement, dated 02.04.2010. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad and others vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1801 , wherein it is held that a, ''Settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement''. 11. In the present case on hand, according to the 18(1) settlement, the petitioner is not a party to the Agreement as the Settlement states that only 777 permanent signatory employees to the Settlement on the date of signing the settlement i.e. 02.04.2010, are entitled to the benefits of the Settlement. Even the petitioner has accepted the fact that the name of the petitioner is not available in the rolls of the Company, as on 2.04.2010 during the cross examination. Moreover, the Settlement does not have retrospective effect but only prospective effect on the 777 employees on the rolls of the company. Moreover, the period of Settlement cannot determine the beneficiaries of the Settlement when a clause under the settlement explicitly states who the beneficiaries are namely 777 individuals alone. 12. Moreover, the Settlement does not have retrospective effect but only prospective effect on the 777 employees on the rolls of the company. Moreover, the period of Settlement cannot determine the beneficiaries of the Settlement when a clause under the settlement explicitly states who the beneficiaries are namely 777 individuals alone. 12. The learned counsel further stated that although the petitioner was in service on 01.3.2010, on the date of coming into force of the said Settlement, the petitioner cannot claim benefits, as the same covers only the 777 employees as on the date of signing the Settlement mentioned in the annexure to the Settlement are covered by 18(1) Settlement and the Court below, finding that the petitioner was not in service on 02.04.2010, has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the same needs no interference of this Court. Therefore, adding to 777 names would result in modifying agreed clause that Settlement would apply only to 777 persons which number did not include the petitioner. 13. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully. 14. As held by the Authorities/Respondents 2 and 3, the Settlement is not applicable to the petitioner, as he had retired prior to the Agreement date i.e. on 31.03.2010. On the date of signing of the 18(1) settlement i.e. 02.04.2010, the petitioner was not an employee of the Company. Therefore, during the operation of the settlement, the petitioner was not an employee, so, the agreement did not bind the parties. 15. That apart, the Settlement states that only 777 permanent signatory employees to the Settlement on the date of signing the settlement i.e. 02.04.2010, are entitled to the benefits of the Settlement. In such a situation, the consideration of the petitioner’s claim would be wholly extraneous. The authorities under the Act, carefully gone into the claim of the petitioner and also the terms of the settlement entered into parties and rightly, rejected the petitioner’s claim as not sustainable. The reasons set out in the orders passed by the Authorities do not show any error. Further when the terms of the settlement in no way refer the consideration of petitioner’s claim, throwing additional financial burden on the management in violation of clause entered into settlement would only makes the claim unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, the writ petition is dismissed. Further when the terms of the settlement in no way refer the consideration of petitioner’s claim, throwing additional financial burden on the management in violation of clause entered into settlement would only makes the claim unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.