As per case facts, petitioners, former workmen of respondent company, sought unpaid wages and statutory dues from June to November 1999, arguing they were still employees after a November 1999 ... notice suspended work but assured protection. They challenged a March 2005 settlement (for voluntary retirement) which they claimed was signed under coercion, due to illiteracy, and resulted in short payments. The Industrial Court dismissed their complaint. The question arose whether the March 2005 settlement was valid and binding, considering allegations of fraud, coercion, statutory non-compliance, and delayed protest. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the settlement's validity. It held that petitioners failed to prove fraud or coercion, payments were per settlement, and no statutory minimum breach was shown. The delay in raising objections after accepting payments further weakened their claims, reinforcing that industrial settlements are package deals not to be lightly disturbed without clear evidence of illegality.