-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS PATENT PATENT PATENT APPEAL NO.258 OF 2005 APPEAL NO.258 OF 2005 APPEAL NO.258 OF 2005 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.6232 OF 2005 NO.6232 OF 2005 NO.6232 OF 2005 Mr Uddhav Kadam ...Petitioner v/s M/s B.O.C. India Ltd. and anr. ...Respondents Mr S.M. Oak i/b Ms N. Thatte for Petitioner. Mr M.M. Varma i/b Mr Rajesh Gehani for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND V.M. KANADE JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21st November 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.6232 of 2005. By that petition, the petitioner was challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. The appellant was in service of the respondent No.1 - Company from 8th November 1965 to 30th December 1990 at Ghatkopar Undertaking. The Labour Commissioner, Mumbai granted permission to close down the Ghatkopar Unit by order dated 22nd February 1999. However, that order was stayed and the matter was referred to the Industrial Court. The reference was admitted in favour of the workmen and the closure was declared illegal and the workmen were granted compensation. The Company being aggrieved by this order, filed writ petition No.856 of 2001 in this Court. That petition was contested by the recognised trade union, a compromise was arrived and in terms of that compromise, writ petition was disposed off. It appears from the consent terms that out of 120 workmen, 11 workmen were excluded from the workmen who were entitled to receive amounts under the consent terms. The present appellant is one of them who were -3- excluded from the benefits. It appears that before the settlement was recorded by the Court, he had taken out chamber summons to join as a party in the writ petition. As recognised trade union was already a party - respondent, his chamber summons was rejected but he was granted liberty to take out separate application. The appellant did not take out any proceeding till the compromise was recorded by the Court and the writ petition was disposed off by order dated 13th February 2003. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint against his exclusion from the benefit of the compromise terms. That complaint was dismissed, against which he filed writ petition referred to above. The present appeal is directed against the order passed in the said writ petition. 2. It appears from the record that on getting permission from the Labour Commissioner, cheques for retrenchment compensation were forwarded by the Company to all the workmen. Out of total workmen, 120 workmen refused to accept the letter of termination and the cheques sent to them. However, the present appellant and 10 others accepted the cheques in full and final settlement of the dues. This probably might be the reason why the appellant and 10 others were excluded from the compromise. Therefore, exclusion of the appellant from the consent terms appears to be -4- justified. In any case, it is clear from the chamber summons taken out by the appellant that he was aware of the fact that the recognised trade union is negotiating settlement with the Company and he is likely to be excluded from the benefit of the settlement. In our opinion, it was for the appellant at that time to approach the Court where the writ petition was pending to point out to the Court that he is not agreeable to the consent terms and could have sought permission of the Court to contest the writ petition. The appellant did not do that though liberty was given to him to adopt appropriate proceedings. He allowed consent terms to be recorded, petition to be disposed off, order granting reinstatement in service to be set aside and then approached Labour Court for benefit flowing out of the settlement, ignoring the fact that the 120 workmen who were given benefits of the settlement and the appellant constituted different class because 120 employees had not received the cheques whereas the appellant had encashed the cheque of retrenchment compensation. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we find that there is no illegality in the order impugned. Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of -5- the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( V.M. KANADE J.)