SCA/9799/1994 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9799 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ========================================================= GUJCHEM DISTILLERS INDIA LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus HASUBEN AMRUTBHAI NAIK - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK C RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DS VASAVADA for Respondent(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting SCA/9799/1994 2/4 JUDGMENT aside the judgment and award dated 18.6.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Navsari in Reference (LCN) No.279/88 directing the petitioner to reinstate the original respondent- workman with 50% back wages. 2. During the pendency of present Special Civil Application, the original respondent-workman Amrutbhai Naik has died and his heirs are brought on record. As the respondent-workman has died, there is no question of reinstatement now. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have submitted that, with a view to put an end to the entire litigation more particularly when the workman is not alive, it is agreed that the petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the heirs of workman by way of full and final settlement towards their claim on the basis of the impugned judgment and award and/or any other claim against the petitioner company. 3. Shri Dipak C.Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted under the instructions from his client that the petitioner company will pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the heirs of the original workman as full and SCA/9799/1994 3/4 JUDGMENT final settlement towards their claim against the petitioner company inclusive of their claim pursuant to the impugned judgment and award. However, he has submitted that as the petitioner company is before the BIFR, the said amount shall be paid by the petitioner in five equal instalments of Rs.15,000/- each commencing from 1st June, 2008. 4. Shri D.S.Vasavada, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents has stated under the instructions from his client that the respondents are agreeable to the above and to accept Rs.75,000/- by way of full and final settlement towards their claim against the petitioner company inclusive of their claim pursuant to the impugned judgment and award and they are also agreeable to get the same amount of Rs.75,000/- in five equal instalments of Rs.15,000/- each. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to modify the impugned judgment and award accordingly. 5. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.75,000/- to the heirs of respondent-workman as full and final settlement towards their claim against the petitioner company inclusive of their claim pursuant to the impugned SCA/9799/1994 4/4 JUDGMENT judgment and award. The said amount be paid by the petitioner company by five equal instalments of Rs.15,000/- each commencing from 1st June, 2008, and the same shall be paid by Account Payee Cheque in the name of respondent No.1/1 Hasuben Amrutbhai Naik widow of workman. On payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.75,000/-, there shall not be any claim of the respondent against the petitioner company. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/