WP/7265/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7265 OF 2010 Paranjape Metal Shapes Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Paranjape Metal Shapes Employees Union ... Respondent Mr.A.D. Patwardhan a/w T.R. Yadav for Petitioner Mr.P.S. Maholkar for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petition has been filed by an employer against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, Satara dated 30.8.2010. A few facts neessary for appreciation of the impugned order are as follows: General demands were raised by the respondent union which represents the workmen in the petitioner company and were referred for adjudication. It appears that the parties attempted to negotiate a settlement, but it was not possible to arrive at a settlement. Thereafter, the workmen nominated five of their colleagues to represent them and approach the management to settle their grievances which were raised in the industrial dispute pending before the Tribunal. On 26.5.2008, a WP/7265/2010 : 2 : settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and all the workers, except 5 of them. An application was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal to pass an award in terms of the settlement. That application was rejected on 31.12.2009. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred writ petition No.939 of 2010 before this Court. That petition was allowed on 1.4.2010 and the application for passing an award in terms of the settlement was restored to file. This Court directed the Industrial Tribunal to frame appropriate issues for deciding the aforesaid application and to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. However, the Industrial Tribunal it appears has framed only one issue in the application i.e., “whether the application is maintainable”. The Tribunal has recorded a negative finding and has therefore dismissed the application. 3. In my view, the grievance of the petitioner is well founded. Once there is a reference is made before the Tribunal, it is expected to dispose of the reference on merits. However, when the parties to the reference approach it for passing an award in terms of a settlement, it is expected to pass such an award if it finds that the settlement is fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of law. The Tribunal instead of considering this aspect of the matter has rejected the application and, therefore, in my opinion, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. 4. In these circumstances, the following order is passed: i) The petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. ii) The Tribunal will first decide whether the settlement dated 26.5.2008 is fair, proper and legal after permitting the parties to lead evidence on this issue. WP/7265/2010 : 3 : iii) If the Tribunal finds that the aforesaid issue can be answered in the affirmative, the Tribunal shall pass an award in terms of the settlement. iv) In the event the Tribunal finds that the settlement is not fair, proper and legal, it shall consider the reference on merits after permitting the parties to lead evidence. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly.