Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. B. Singh, Advocate draws the attention of the Court to an application No. 14937 filed on 30 April, 1991. a copy of which was not served on learned counsel for the workman respondent No. 2, to make a statement to the effect, that there has been a settlement between the petitionee and the respondeat workman and, thus, this petition is not pressed and is permitted to be withdrawn
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 2, the workman Mohd. Idrish Khan, Mr. J. N. Tiwari, Senior Advocate submits that he is not aware of any settlement the like of which has been mentioned in the application of the employer for the simple reason that a copy of it has not been served on the counsel for the respondent workman. A settlement under the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act, if it Is to have the sanction of a binding effect must be registered under section 4-F on Form-I, of the Act aforesaid. The settlement placed on record, apparently is a notarial affidavit signed by some person purporting to act on behalf of the Company and carries a signature of the respondent workman. Counsel for the workman does not recognise this settlement and repeats his submission that he neither had nor has any instructions on it. A registered settlement under the Act would imply that the award itself has been varied. This is not so in the present case and the award stands. Thus, while the employer, M/s. J. K. Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Kanpur may have its petition dismissed as not pressed which the employer is at liberty to do so, but it may not be misunderstood that the Court has taken judicial notice of this settlement. This workman will be entitled to have the impugned award dated 22-9-1980, implemented.
(3.) IN these circumstances the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, but with costs. Petition dismissed.;