IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8350 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. P.KRISHNADAS, S/O.PERACHAN RESIDING AT PALATHIL HOUSE, KRISHNAKRIPA, KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. M.V.MUHAMMED, S/O.IMBICHIKOYA HAJI, RESIDING AT SHAHNAZ MAHAL, P.O.OLAVANNA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STEEL COMPLEX LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, STEEL COMPLEX P.O, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 631. 3. STEEL WORKERS UNION CITU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL COMPLEX LTD., P.O.KOLATHARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 655. 4. STEEL EMPLOYEES UNION INTUC, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL COMPLEX LTD., P.O.KOLATHARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 655. WPC NO.8350/09 -2- 5. STEEL COMPLEX SWATHANDRA THOZHILALI UNION STU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL COMPLEX LTD., P.O.KOLATHARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 655. 6. STEEL MAZDOOR SANGAM BMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL COMPLEX LTD., P.O.KOLATHARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 655. 7. MERCANTILE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MEA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL COMPLEX LTD., P.O.KOLATHARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 655. 8. STEEL ENGINEERING AND EMPLOYEES UNION INTUC, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL COMPLEX LTD., P.O.KOLATHARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 655. 9. STEEL MILL WORKERS UNION AITUC, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL COMPLEX LTD., P.O.KOLATHARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE 673 655. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 8350 OF 2009 (K) ==================== Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are workmen of the 2nd respondent company. The Company and the Unions representing the workmen of the company entered into a bilateral settlement, Ext.P6. The petitioners are challenging the same on the ground that the settlement does not take care of the interests of the workmen, who have opted for voluntary retirement and that the settlement is not in the form prescribed under law, and therefore the same is unenforceable. 2. I am of the opinion that a memorandum of settlement cannot be challenged in a writ petition. The remedy of the petitioners lie in raising an industrial dispute challenging the validity of the settlement itself, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Rp