1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.611 OF 1999 Mrs.Kokila Bharat Jani & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Union Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.B.B.Parekh for the Petitioners. Mr.A.D.Shetty for Respondent No.1. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 22nd October, 2010. P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the Settlement dated 21st August, 1996 between the Bank and its employees through their Trade Union. The petitioner challenges the only part of the Settlement, whereby the cut-off date is fixed for payment of gratuity. 2. Two objections are raised on behalf of the Respondents. First objection is that this is the Settlement arrived at between the Trade Union of the employees and the Employer Bank u/s.18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore if the petitioner wants to challenge the Settlement, the remedy is provided by the Industrial Disputes Act. What will be an appropriate cut-off date 2 for the purpose of payment of gratuity is a disputed question of fact and therefore, remedy of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available to the petitioner. Second submission is, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Herbertsons Ltd. V/s.Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd. - 1977 Labour & Industrial Cases 162, that the Settlement is arrived at by taking into consideration the situation that was in existence at the time of of Settlement and several factors are considered while arriving at the Settlement, and therefore, such a Settlement cannot be permitted to be challenged in bits and pieces. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners on both these aspects. In our opinion, learned counsel for the Respondents is right in submitting that the question as to what will be the appropriate cut-off date for payment of gratuity is always question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Settlement is arrived at between the employer and its employees through its Trade Union. Therefore, the Settlement is relatable to the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The remedy of the petitioner, if the petitioners feels 3 aggrieved by the Settlement, is to approach the forum provided by the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition would not be an appropriate remedy, specially because there is disputed question of fact involved. We also find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the Respondents that when the Settlement is reached between the parties, several factors go into the agreement or the Settlement, and therefore, the Settlement cannot be challenged in bits and pieces and only a part of a Settlement cannot be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, taking overall view of the matter, no reliefs can be granted to the petitioners. Petition therefore fails and is dismissed. (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)