SUMAN SUBHASH JAGTAP Vs. RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five individual employees have challenged an order dated 27-8-1992 passed by the Second Labour Court at Thane in an Application for interim relief. Instead of resorting the remedy such as appeal under section 84 or Revision under section 85 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, the petitioners have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court had partly allowed their application for interim relief directing the respondent company to pay 75% of the last drawn wages to the applicants in Application (BIR) Nos. 4 to 8 of 1992 (present petitioners) from the date of the order till the decision of enquiry and in the alternative the company was directed to allow them to join their duties. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition four of the five petitioners main dispute have been settled out of Court. The learned Advocate for the respondent company has filed an affidavit which is taken on record and marked as "x" for identification, wherein all the details about the settlement have been given. The learned advocate for the respondent-company has also filed two agreements entered into between Mrs. Asha Vasant Vaste and the Company and Smt. Janki Vithal Tarvade and the Company. These agreements are dated 16-3-2000 and 31-3-2000 respectively. It is also pertinent to note that the main Application filed by the present petitioners before the Labour Court claiming suspension wages have been dismissed for default and those orders have become final.

(2.) OUT of five petitioners two have been reinstated in service viz. (1) Smt. Suman Laxman Jagtap and (2) Smt. Sulochana G. Jadhav. The other two petitioners viz. (1) Smt. Asha Vasant Vaste and (2) Smt. Janki Vithal Tarvade have settled, in accordance with the aforesaid agreement, their entire dispute on monetary basis. It appears the fifth petitioner Smt. Snehalata Chandrakant Parab has not been settled her claim and her case is pending before the Industrial Court i. e. Revision Application No. 66 of 1997. I am told across the bar by the learned Advocate for the respondent company that the company had given 31st March, 2000 as the last date of Settlement. It appears that Smt. Snehalata Parab who till date could not approach to the company for settlement. Smt. Doshi for the company has fairly made a statement that if the said Smt. Snehalata Parab approaches the company for settlement of her dispute, on par with others within a period of six weeks from today the company would extend the same benefit of settlement to her on par with other petitioners. The statement made by the learned Advocate is accepted. If Smt. Snehalata Parab approaches the company within the said period of six weeks a settlement can be entered into between them. In view of this the whole petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Interim orders passed at the time of admission stands vacated. Certified copy of the order is expedited. Petition disposed of accordingly.