1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2037 OF 2010 Kamal Electric Works & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Shri Narayan pandurang Hadkar & ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.S.Datar for the petitioners. Mr.M.D.Modgi for respondent Nos.1 to 18. Mr.Amit Jamsandekar a/w Ms.Deepa Hate i/by Gajaria & Co. for respondent No.19. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 19TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 29.12.2009. By this order the Industrial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner No.2. 2. Petitioner No.1 was a partnership firm in which the respondent workmen were employed. It appears that this firm had two partners, namely, (1) Ravindra Moreshwar 2 Nimkar and (2) Smt.Smita Yashwant Ludbe i.e. petitioner No. 2. Mr.Ravindra Moreshwar Nimkar expired on 22.7.2009. The remaining partner i.e. respondent No.2 wants to settle the dispute between the partnership firm and the workmen. In my view, the Labour Court ought to have accepted the settlement rather than directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take steps to satisfy the Bank about their authority. The Labour Court could have passed an order in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. In any event, Ravindra Nimkar’s heirs are not on record and the complaint is being defended by respondent No.1. Despite Ravindra Nimkar having died on 22.7.2009, no steps were taken by any of his heirs to get themselves impleaded in the complaint and probably advisedly so. Therefore, in my view, respondent No.19 who is the son of Ravindra Nimkar, who has been made a party by the petitioners by way of abundant precaution, has no right to contest the complaint or to object to the settlement unless he is impleaded. 3. In this view of the matter, the Industrial Court may consider the validity of the settlement and accept the settlement, arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent workmen and pass orders accordingly. Respondent No.19 has filed a suit for accounts against 3 petitioner No.2 and therefore any grievance that he may have against petitioner No.2 can be agitated there. The respondent-workmen are not concerned with the dispute between the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.19. 4. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. .....