M. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employer, challenges an order dated 30.12.1994, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, declined to register a settlement for industrial dispute in terms of Section 6B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the said respondent and the other respondents, who are workmen to register the alleged settlement.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri DInesh Dwivedi and Sri K. P. Agarwal. Senior Advocate for the respondents and also the learned standing counsel.
(3.) The petitioner's Industry named 'Prag Vanaspati Products' was afflicted with labour problems and it ultimately declared a lock-out from 30.11.1991. The State Government by its order dated 16.6.1992 prohibited the lock-out in the Company for a period of 180 days. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of a Writ Petition No. 21615 of 1992 which was allowed by this Court by order dated 11.11.1992. The prohibition order was quashed. The workmen approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by an order dated 14.5.1993. the Hon'ble Supreme Court required the State Government to indicate as to what steps it was going to take for the smooth functioning of the Mill. Thereupon the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal IV, Agra under Section 4K of the Act. The dispute referred was about the validity of the lock-out- On 5.5.1994 the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of this Court's order dated 11.11.1992. Thereupon, the workmen wanted payment of their dues and the Dy. Labour Commissioner issued a recovery certificate under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978. The petitioner again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 26694 of 1994 which is pending in this Court. On the petitioner's application for an Interim stay in that writ petition, it was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs within six weeks. The petitioner could not do so and moved an application for extension of time by six weeks. The Court desired that the petitioner should first deposit some amount to show its bona fides. In the meantime, the Workers Union respondent No. 2 allegedly entered into an agreement with the petitioner settling the disputes with regard to the payment of wages for the prohibition period. A copy of the agreement has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-2. It is claimed that after the above agreement was executed between the parties, the petitioner immediately made an application before this Court that the recovery proceedings be quashed inasmuch as they have become infructuous on account of the agreement, it is claimed that the respondents admitted the settlement of the dispute in their counter-affidavit filed in the aforesaid writ petition, a copy of the said affidavit has been annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure-3. On the petitioner's application in the aforesaid writ petition, this Court by an order dated 29.11.1994 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and also directed that the parties may proceed to get the agreement registered in the next 15 days and in case the deposit was not made, the recovery proceedings shall proceed after two weeks. The sum of Rs. 5 lacs is said to have been deposited on 3.12.1994 through a bank draft delivered to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner. The petitioner moved an application for the registration of the agreement by the respondent No. 1 which has been declined by the impugned order. The said order states that the workmen side denied the agreement and alleged that six copies of the alleged agreement do not bear their signature and only the rough draft had their signature. The worker side declined to sign the agreement in the presence of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 declined to register the agreement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the execution of the settlement had been admitted by the workmen in the earlier writ petition, referred to above, as is evident by the affidavit and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 should have registered the same and he should be directed to do so.;