relied on Ibrahim Hanif Mulani (supra) even before the Industrial Court. That was a case under Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-N of the ID Act. It is quite settled that a settlement cannot decide fate of workmen, agreeing to terminate their services in violation of the provisions of law. The validity of the same, in a given case, if material placed on record, can be tested by the Court. In the present case, considering the similar averments made in the complaint, referring to the demand letter and the point of reference made, the common evidence led by the parties, no where based on the foundation of breach of any provisions of law. The parties, admittedly, based upon then existing facts and circumstances, agreed and settled the matter which was never stated and/or alleged to be contrary to any provisions of law and in fact got the benefit out of it, now just cannot be permitted to say to overlook it and grant the additional benefit so claimed. It appears that they got disturbed and felt injustice as subsequently, some employees, in different circumstances, received much higher compensation. Therefore, though some allegations were made about unfair treatment, pressure but unable to support it also because of their conduct and the lapse of period/time. All were recipient of the compensation based upon the situation of relevant
