1 WP.2212/2009 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2212 OF 2009 Processing Workers Union & Anr, ...Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr. N.M. Ganguli, for the Petitioners. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Kiran Bapat with Mr. Desai i/b Desai & Desai Associates, for Respondent No.6. Mr. S.V. Doijode i/b Doijode Associates,for Respondent No.8. ..... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9TH JULY, 2010. P.C. 1] The petitioner no.1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act and represents the workers employed in respondent no.6-Jalan Dyeing & Bleaching Mills, situate at Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. The property of respondent no.6-company was being developed and the workers of respondent no.6-company are aggrieved by non payment of their dues and therefore approached the government authority being the Industries and Labour Department. 2 WP.2212/2009 2] The petitioner-union on the basis of Government Decision dated 30.10.2007 sought relief. By the said decision dated 30.10.2007, no objection certificate for development of the land of companies/factories/mills in the State is not to be granted without ensuring payment of legal dues of all the workers of the concerned companies/factories/mills. 3] Today the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent no.8 which is partnership firm developing the property in question, have placed on record the terms of settlement dated 2.7.2010. One Mr. Sahadev Kajare, Secretary of the petitioner-union who has signed the same document and represents the petitioner-union is present in Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners identifies the said representative of petitioner-union. The learned counsel for the parties have also put their signatures on the terms of settlement, so also representative of respondent no.8-developer 4] The representative of the petitioner-union has already signed the receipt acknowledging receipt of cheques mentioned therein. In view of the above, we take the terms of settlement on record and mark these ‘X’ for identification. Undertakings contained therein are accepted. 3 WP.2212/2009 5] Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the petition in terms of above terms of settlement dated 2.7.2010 arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos.7 and 8. 6] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Ad-interim order dated 11.6.2010 passed in writ petition stands vacated. Penalty levied by the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai stands waived. 7] We also note that respondent nos.7 and 8 have paid total amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/- to the workers whose names are mentioned in annexure ‘A’ to the terms of settlement. The said amounts are wages of the workers payable by respondent no.6 over a period of more than 10 years, and therefore, the said workers will be entitled to claim benefits under sections 192[2A] and 89 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of computation of their wages spread over for the entire period. 8] With above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 4 WP.2212/2009