M.Katju - (1.) THIS writ petition and the connected writ petition Nos. 748 of 1992, 749 of 1992, 750 of 1992 and 751 of 1992 are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed these writ petitions against an order of respondent No. 2 dated 3-12-1991 rejecting the petitioner's application for deciding the reference in terms of the settlement dated 19-10-1989. The facts of the case are that the State Government made a reference under section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court. The terms of the reference have been quoted in para 4 of the writ petition, and the dispute referred is; regarding validity/justification of the termination of service of respondent No. 3 from 24-9-1985. While this reference was pending adjudication, it is alleged that the petitioner's factory closed down irrevocably on 4-1-1989. Thereafter certain negotiations were held and it is alleged that ultimately and agreement dated 19-10-89 was reached, true copy of which is annexure-1 to the writ petition. This agreement was registered under section 6-B (2) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, vide annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that all outstanding disputes between the petitioner and the workmen were settled by the aforesaid settlement dated 19-10-1989. Hence, the petitioner moved an application before the Labour Court for deciding the adjudication case No. 294 of 1988 in terms of the settlement dated 19-10-1989. A true copy of the said application is annexure-4 to the writ petition. However, by the order dated 3-12-91 (annexure-6 to the writ petition) the Labour Court has rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the; petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 3-12-1991, and praying for a mandamus directing the Labour Court to decide the adjudication case as per settlement dated 19-10-1989. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case, and I have heard Shri S. S. Bhatnagar, and Shri M. B. Saxena for petitioner, and Shri K.P. Agarwal for respondent No. 3, I am, therefore, disposing of this case finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
(3.) I have perused the settlement dated 19-10-1989. This settlement has been signed by the employees, and representatives of various Unions. It also bears the signature of the Additional Labour Commissioner, U. P. The settlement states that the employers has closed down the unit for being unprofitable, and this gave rise to disputes which could not be settled by the parties themselves. Thereafter, talks took place in the presence of two Honourable Ministers, and the Labour Commissioner, U. P. which led to the settlement whose terms were set out below.;