As per case facts, the Petitioner, a public transport company formed by merging two older undertakings, was challenged for not implementing a pension scheme. The scheme, which applied to some ... employees of the erstwhile PMT before a certain year, was later part of a settlement to be extended to all employees, subject to government approval. The Respondent Union filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practices for the Petitioner's failure to implement this settlement. The Industrial Court ruled in favor of the Union, leading the Petitioner to appeal to the High Court. The question arose whether the Industrial Court was correct in determining that the Petitioner was bound by the prior settlement and that its non-implementation of pension benefits constituted an unfair labor practice. Finally, the High Court upheld the Industrial Court's judgment, confirming that the Petitioner, as a successor, was bound by the settlement. It clarified that retired employees could be represented by the Union, that conditional implementation required genuine efforts, and that receiving provident fund benefits did not automatically preclude pension claims. The Court found no legal error in the Industrial Court's conclusion that the Petitioner engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to implement the pension scheme as per the settlement, dismissing the Writ Petition and directing compliance within six months.