Settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings binds all parties and cannot be judicially expanded to include excluded workers.

The appellants are a contractual labor union and individual workers who were engaged by ONGC through contractors prior to June 24, 2008, but were disengaged before April 1, 2012

During a pending industrial reference regarding wages and service conditions, a settlement was reached during conciliation proceedings, which culminated in an Industrial Award dated September 25, 2014

This Award provided job security benefits specifically to workers engaged on June 24, 2008, or January 1, 2011, who continued in service until the settlement date

The appellants sought a direction to extend these benefits to workers disengaged prior to April 1, 2012, arguing for preferential consideration in future engagements

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, holding the settlement-based Award binding on all parties

1. Whether workers excluded by the specific cut-off dates in an industrial settlement/award can claim preferential engagement or job security benefits under the same award

2. Whether the principles of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding re-employment of retrenched workmen, apply to contractual laborers whose engagement ended prior to a settlement

Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates that settlements arrived at during conciliation proceedings are binding on all parties to the dispute, not just the signatories

The principle that industrial peace is achieved through collective bargaining and negotiated settlements, which are accorded finality to preserve harmony

Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act... statutory preference for re-employment is predicated on "retrenchment" and does not override the express terms of a settled award

The court reasoned that the settlement was a "negotiated resolution" where cut-off dates were an "essential component of the bargaining"

Since the appellants did not challenge the validity of the settlement or the award itself, the Writ Court cannot exercise judicial review under Article 226 to "rewrite the settlement" or create an additional category of beneficiaries not contemplated by the parties

The court rejected the application of Section 25H, noting that this was not a case of retrenchment and statutory finality of the settlement takes precedence

The court analyzed the "future contracts" clause of the award, concluding it ensures that future workers receive settlement benefits from their date of engagement, but it does not retrospectively enlarge the eligibility criteria to include those previously disengaged

The court clarified that while the appellants have no right to continuity of service or back wages, if they are engaged afresh under future contracts where settlement conditions are incorporated, they shall be entitled to the benefits of the settlement only from the date of such fresh engagement. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld