HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14263 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioners herein are all erstwhile members of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited. They question a clause in the settlement ‘relating to the effective date’ as arbitrary and illegal. A settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) was arrived at between the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Banks’ Association, Hyderabad, on behalf of the District Cooperative Central Banks in the State, and the Andhra Pradesh Bank Employees Federation, Hyderabad on behalf of employees. Under the said settlement, the monetary benefits accruing on account of the settlement were to be paid with effect from 01.04.1996. Sri R.V.Nagabhushana Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, while the benefit of revision in pay scales was given with effect from 01.11.1992, and annual grade/stagnation increments were released notionally with effect from 01.11.1992, the said settlement required the financial benefits to be extended only from 01.04.1996. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the revised pay scales are with effect from 01.11.1992, the financial benefits should have been extended from that date and not from 01.04.1996 onwards. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were all members of the Andhra Pradesh Bank Employees Federation, which represented all integrated cadres of employees in the District Cooperative Central Banks. The Federation negotiated with the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Banks’ Association culminating in an agreement under Section 18(1) of the Act. A settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Act, is binding on the parties to the settlement and, since the validity of the settlement is also not under challenge in this Writ Petition, it is not open to a few of the members of the Federation to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to question some of the clauses of the said settlement. A settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Act, entered into on behalf of its members by the federation, cannot be subjected to challenge by a few of its members. The remedy, even otherwise, to question such a settlement is under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:12.08.2010 usd