1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.611 OF 2001 Pandurang Ramchandra Mayekar & Ors. .....Petitioners V/s. Mazgaon Dock Limited & Ors. ..... Respondents Smt.Gayatri Singh i/by Milind R. Deshpande, for the petitioners. Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Advocate i/by P.M.Palshikar, for respondent No.1. Mr.H.K.Vardhan a/w V.B.Tiwari, for respondent No.2. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JULY 03, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioners are the ex-employees of respondent No.1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers : - (a) That this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order and/or a direction calling for records pertaining to Adjudication proceedings in (IT) No.24 of 1980 at all its stages and the subsequent settlements between the First respondent and its present workmen, dated 17-09-1998 and after examining the legality, validating and propriety thereof, quash and set aside the clauses 34 of the settlements dated 17-09-1998. So far as and only to the extent of the clause i.e. “WHO ARE ON THE ROLL OF THE COMPANY ON 1ST OCTOBER 1998 AND COVERED BY THIS SETTLEMENT” and 2 substitude by the clause to include the petitioners and other retired employees of the First respondent company who were in the employment as on 1.4.1979 and retire only after 31st March 1985. (b) That the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing and calling upon the Respondents to pay to the petitioners and other retire employees of the First Respondent who retired only after 31st March, 1985 Lump Sum payment as provided in clauses 34 of the said settlements dated 17-09-1998 for the period during which they were in the employment of the First Respondent Company. (c) For costs; and (d) For such other and further orders and reliefs as this Honourable High Court deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in an individual settlement, the interest of the petitioners is not taken care of by the concerned Union as the settlement is only in connection with the employees who were in service. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 has pointed out the order dated 09-06-2004 of this Court in Writ Petition No.1837 of 2001, wherein the Division Bench has passed following order : - “By this petition, petitioner seeks alteration of certain clauses of settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for 3 such purpose. Hence, petition is dismissed”. 3. Having realized the difficulty that the Court may not be able to give directions as prayed for by the petitioners in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that she may be allowed to amend the petition. She further submitted that as per the original Award, the retired employees were entitled to get benefit of lumpsum payment. Mr.Cama, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the Award cannot be said to be in existence as ultimately it was found that the appropriate authority was the Central Government and not the State Government and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. 4. Considering the said fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is injustice done to the retired employees in the matter of payment of lumpsum amount. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the representation made earlier, was already rejected by the respondent. Be that as it may, if the petitioners have any grievance, the appropriate remedy is to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. We cannot grant reliefs as prayed for in this petition, as earlier it has been held that the relief in this behalf, cannot be 4 granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that if the petitioners have any grievance in the matter of getting ex-gratia payment, it will be open to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in connection with their individual grievance. However, we have not clarified as to whether any such remedy is available or not and if such dispute is raised, it is for the appropriate forum to consider this aspect. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition is rejected. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)