- (1.) It has been pointed out at the hearing that the settlements made in the years 1979, 1986 and 1987 may cumulatively have the effect of providing answer to the entire controversy on facts between the parties, irrespective of the question of validity of Section 6-A of the Uttar pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 raised in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are filed by certain unions representing a section of the workmen of the industry in addition to one writ petition being filed also by four individual workmen. The four individual workmen, who are petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 1989, namely, K. D. Pandey, Virendra Sahi, Shiva narayan Sharma and Vijay Bhan Singh, have asserted that they are not members of any of the unions and for this reason they have brought a separate writ petition. Payment is said to have been made to the individual workman concerned in terms of the settlements which have been received by them without prejudice to their rights. The nature of controversy between the two sides relating to the above settlements is such that it cannot be appropriately determined in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in view of the fact that the determination of the controversy requires the adjudication of some disputed question of fact as well. In these circumstances, the question of validity of the statutory provision becomes academic because of the defence of the management based on the existence of the settlements, even though the enforceability and effect thereof is disputed by the writ petitioners.
(2.) In view of the above, we are of the opinion that a proceeding under Article 32 of the constitution is not the appropriate remedy for adjudication of the dispute between the parties based on the validity and effect of the above settlements and we must decline the exercise of that power for this reason alone. It is made clear that any other remedy that may be available to the writ petitioners to assail the enforceability and effect of the settlements under the law, would remain available to them and the period of pendency of these writ petitions in this Court would not be treated as period of delay in that proceeding.
(3.) These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.;