THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 27181 of 2009 Dated: 16.02.2010 Between: S.Veeraswamy and 9 others. … Petitioners And The Additional Commissioner of Labour & State Conciliation Officer, Hyderabad and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 27181 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioners are working as Fork Lift Drivers in the 4th respondent Company. This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the settlement dated 20.10.2009 entered into between the 4th respondent and Class B Workmen represented by Union-A.P.ITC Limited, ILTD and GLT Plant Employees Union as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Section 18 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. It is not in dispute that there was a settlement between the 4th respondent and the Class B workmen-Union represented by A.P. Federation of ILTD Company Workers on 24.07.2008. As per clause 4 of the said settlement, the same shall remain in force until it is modified or substituted or terminated by another settlement or award. It was further added that under no circumstances the said memorandum of settlement shall be modified or substituted or terminated before 30.06.2012. However, subsequently, elections were held on 06.02.2009 and the I.N.T.U.C was declared as the majority union. It appears that a complaint was made by the said Union alleging that the selection for Fork Lift Drivers was not properly conducted and seniority was not properly followed and on the basis of the same, fresh conciliation proceedings were taken up and ultimately, the impugned settlement dated 20.10.2009 has been entered into. It is alleged by the petitioners that by virtue of the said settlement dated 20.10.2009, it is proposed to revert them as General workers. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that in the light of the earlier settlement, dated 24.07.2008, which is binding up to 30.06.2012, it is not open to the 1st respondent to record a fresh settlement dated 20.10.2009. There can be no dispute that as per Section 18(3) of the Act, the settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding on all the parties. Admittedly, the petitioners are members of the Union, which was one of the parties to the settlement dated 23.07.2008. Similarly, they are also members to the majority Union, which entered into the impugned settlement dated 20.10.2009. Therefore, the petitioners are very much bound by the settlement dated 20.10.2009. So far as the contention of the petitioners that it is not open to the 1st respondent to record a fresh settlement while the earlier settlement was in operation is concerned, it is specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent that the terms of the settlement dated 24.07.2008 were entirely different and the dispute relating to the selection and promotion of Fork Lift Drivers at Anaparthi factory did not form part of earlier settlement dated 24.07.2008. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioners to contradict the said plea of the 4th respondent. The terms of the impugned settlement dated 20.10.2009 also make it clear that the dispute relating to the selection and promotion of Fork Lift Drivers was not dealt with in the earlier settlement dated 24.07.2008. In the circumstances, it is not a matter for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 16.02.2010 KLP