1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4846 OF 2009 Shireesh N. Ketkar ....Petitioner V/s. Rupee Co-Op.Bank Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.Mayuresh Modgi for the Petitioner. Mr.M.V. Joglekar for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that it does not consider all the claims made by him in the complaint. 3. A settlement dated 3.5.2000 was entered into between the representative union and Respondent No.1. It appears that the payments under the settlement were made only upto 2002 but not thereafter allegedly due to financial difficulties faced by Respondent No.1. Proceedings were therefore adopted by the representative union against Respondent No.1 by filing a complaint for enforcement of the said settlement dated 3.5.2000. The complaint was allowed. Respondent No.1 challenged that order by filing Writ Petition No.866 of 2008. The Writ Petition was admitted but interim relief was refused. Respondent No.1 2 therefore filed L.P.A. No.96 of 2008. 4. The Industrial Court by the impugned order in the present matter rightly considered the claims made by the Petitioner upto the year 2002 only and held that claims pertaining to the period subsequent thereto, did not warrant consideration at that stage, as it would depend upon the outcome of the said L.P.A. pending before this Court. 5. Thereafter the L.P.A. was disposed of in terms of the consent terms arrived at between the parties therein dated 29.4.2009. 6. Payments in accordance with the consent terms have been made and are being made. The Petitioner however contends that he is not bound by the said settlement/consent terms dated 29.4.2009. It is not necessary for me in this Petition to consider the contentions in this regard. It is true that the complaint has been disposed of. The Petitioner would be entitled in fact to the Industrial Court deciding the balance claims made by him in the present complaint as they have not been finally decided by the impugned order. However, only for convenience, it is desirable that the Petitioner files a fresh complaint. This is in view of the fact that the Petitioner will also have to raise additional grounds/submissions as to why the said consent terms dated 29.4.2009 are not binding on him. In view thereof, there would be no question of such a complaint being affected in any manner whatsoever by the law of limitation. Further the fresh complaint if filed would be only in view of this order although the Petitioner would be entitled to have the matter adjudicated upon in the pending complaint. 7. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the 3 following order :- i). The Petitioner shall be entitled to file a fresh complaint in respect of the remaining claims made in the complaint in which the impugned order is passed. In the event of such complaint being filed, the Industrial Court shall accord to it priority on the basis of the date on which the present complaint namely Complaint (ULP) No.299 of 2005 was filed. ii). All other contentions between the parties are kept open except as regards the limitation. iii). Needless to add that in the event of the Petitioner failing in the complaint on the basis of the challenge to the consent terms, he would nevertheless be entitled to the benefits in accordance with the said consent terms. This is in fact clear from the fact that the Respondent itself contends that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits only as per the consent terms. iv). There shall be no order as to costs.