1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1704 OF 2007 (Shri Sheshrao Ramchandra Buradkar and others .v. M/s. Tuli Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri R.B. Puranik, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 23RD APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court at Nagpur disposed of respondent No.3's complaint being ULPA Complaint No.882/1996 as withdrawn vide application at Exh.92. The complaint was filed by the respondent No.3-recognised Union challenging the shifting of machinery and for payment of wages. During the pendency of this complaint, closure was effected on 26.11.1996 by the respondent No.2 and thereafter by making amendment to the complaint the closure was also challenged. The respondent No.2 thereafter sold its property to respondent No.1 on 27.05.2003. The respondent No.3 thereafter challenged this sale by filing 2 Company Petition No.2/2004. In this company petition, the respondent No.3 and the Nagpur Union of Working Journalists were the petitioners. The respondent No.3 along with the Nagpur Union of Working Journalists filed an application No. 71/2004 in aforesaid Company Petition for withdrawal of Company Petition on the terms of settlement given in the application. The terms (i) and (v) of settlement read as under. “(i) The petitioners Nos.1 and 2-Unions and its members concede and agree that the action of the Respondent No.1 in closing its unit in question w.e.f. 26.11.1996 (Page No.89 of this petition) is legal and valid. That on and from 26.11.96, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Respondent No.1- Company and its employees who are also members of the Petitioners Nos.1 and 2-Unions. (v) The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2-Unions and their members shall withdraw all the pending cases from the various courts, including Labour Court and Industrial Court.” Thereafter an undertaking came to be filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement and ultimately this Court allowed the Company Application No.71/2004 and Company Petition No.2/2004 was allowed to be withdrawn in view of the compromise. 3 The respondent No.3 thereafter filed an application at Exh.92 in Complaint (ULPA) No.882/1996 in pursuant of the terms and settlement entered into between the respondent No.3 and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The Industrial Court in view of the order in Company Application No.71/2004 in Company Petition No.2/2004 considered the respondent No.3's application at Exh.92 and allowed the respondent No.3 to withdraw the complaint. The Industrial Court in para 19 of the impugned order observed that if any employees are yet not paid their legal dues or the wages, they are at liberty to take recourse to the remedies provided in law. The Industrial Court also observed that it cannot entertain any issue pertaining to the proceedings of the Company Petition. I do not find any error or perversity in the approach adopted by the Industrial Court. The petition is devoid of any substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE *rrg.