- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner perused the record.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereunder holding, that the dispute referred for adjudication having already been determined conclusively in the proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the reference made under Section 4-K of the Act was incom petent and bad in law which was not re quired to be adjudicated upon afresh, the petitioner has approached this Court seek ing redress praying for the quashing of the said order. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. Before the initiation of the proceedings giving rise to the impugned order, the petitioner had initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act challenging his suspension and termination of service ef fected in the month of October, 1978. In the conciliation proceedings registered on the basis of this dispute being C. P. Case No. 96 (S) of 1978, a settlement was reached be tween the employer and the petitioner as contemplated under Section 18 (3) of the Act on 21-2- 1979. Under this settlement apart from the other things which had been settled it was also settled that the suspen sion order dated 21-2-1979 was to stand revoked from the date of settlement and in case the petitioner reports for duty within 15 days, in that event, he will be provided a fresh engagement in the revised scale of Rs. 165/- per month. It was clearly and specifi cally provided under the terms of the aforesaid settlement that the parties to the dispute agreed that apart from the amounts which had been determined to be payable to the workman, he will not be entitled to any other amount and all the disputes will be deemed to have been finally settled and concluded. However, at the instance of the petitioner the State Government made a reference on 8-5-1980 for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Under this reference, the question which was required to be decided was as to whether the order of the employer terminating the services of his workman, Sri R. K. Chaturvedi, Sales man on 14-10-1978 was justified and in accordance with law and in case if it was not so, in that event to what' relief benefit the workman was entitled to.
(3.) THE petitioner admitted the settle ment dated 21-2-1979 but alleged that the terms of the settlement had not been ful filled by the employers and therefore, a dis pute was raised which led to the reference in question. The employer raised a prelimi nary objection to the effect that the refer ence was barred by the settlement arrived at between the parries on 21-2-1979. This issue was decided by the Tribunal as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal under the impugned order came to the conclusion that it was not disputed that a settlement between the employer and the workman had been reached in the conciliation proceeding on 21-2-1979. It has been found that the aforesaid settlement was a settlement as contemplated under Section 18 (3) of the Act. It was also observed that although the settlement was not signed by the workman concerned but by his representative, yet this fact could not invalidate the same. It was observed that the workman could not be allowed to disown the settlement by con tending that it had been signed by his repre sentative and not by him. It was also found that the settlement clearly indicated that the dispute regarding termination of services was clearly covered thereunder. No in dustrial dispute in regard to the alleged ter mination of the services of the workman on a date anterior to 21-2-1979 could be raised after the recording of the settlement in ac cordance with law and in the circumstances, in face of the terms of the settlement a dispute as referred for adjudication could not be deemed to have been surviving so as to call for and warrant an adjudication.;