As per case facts, a settlement between the management and the Union was in operation when the Union issued a strike notice, citing illegal changes in privilege leave computation among ... other grievances. The company sought to declare the strike illegal. The Labour Court agreed, but the High Court reversed this, leading the company to appeal. The question arose whether the strike notice met the prescribed legal form and if the privilege leave grievance was "covered by the settlement" under the Maharashtra Act, thereby rendering the strike illegal, and if the High Court's interference under Article 227 was proper. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the strike notice was valid as it substantially fulfilled basic requirements. It clarified that "covered by the settlement" applies only to express terms, not implementation disputes, making the privilege leave issue outside the settlement's scope. The strike was deemed not illegal, and the High Court's intervention due to the Labour Court's errors was upheld.