1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.535 OF 2008 Smt.Shobhana S. Shah, proprietor M/s. Deepak Talkies. ..Petitioner. V/s Shri Raju Satpal. ..Respondent. Mr.R.S.Pai a/w. Ms.Pallavi Dedhia i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for petitioner. Ms.Vandita Tiwari for respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Having considered the arguments canvassed across the bar, I see no merits in this Petition. In my opinion, the conclusion reached by the Court below that the Respondent was entitled to avail of settlement, in particular, clause-9 thereof, appears to be unexceptionable. No interference is warranted also on the ground that the claim amount involved is Rs.27,447/-. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the amount involved in this case should not be the basis to decide the issue on hand, as similar situation may appear hereafter, in which case 2 liability of the Petitioner would be far higher. The argument does not commend to me. In that, I have already upheld the opinion recorded by the lower Court that the Respondent is entitled to avail of clause (9) of the settlement dated 22nd February, 2005. 3. Emphasis was then placed on the exposition in the case of Reserve Bank of India and Anr. V/s. Reserve Bank of India and Anr. V/s. Reserve Bank of India and Anr. V/s. Cecil Cecil Cecil Dennis Solomon and Anr. reported in 2004(100) ennis Solomon and Anr. reported in 2004(100) ennis Solomon and Anr. reported in 2004(100) FLR 441 FLR 441 FLR 441 to contend that in case of resignation by the employee, the said employee cannot avail of benefit under the settlement. In my opinion, the exposition in the said decision is of no avail in the fact situation of the present case, which issue will have to be decided on the basis of terms and conditions of the settlement in question. No express provision is made in the settlement that in case of resignation, the concerned employee will not be entitled to avail of the benefits under the settlement. It is not in dispute that the Respondent resigned only after the settlement was formally put in place between the parties. If so, the Respondent would be entitled to avail of the said settlement; though a case of resignation, clause (9) of the settlement provides for situation where employee ceases to be in the 3 employment of the Petitioner. It makes no distinction between the employee having ceased to be in employment on account of resignation or otherwise. I have no hesitation in taking the view that the decision of the Apex Court pressed into service will be of no avail in the fact situation of the present case. 4. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)