Gujarat High Court
Laxminarayan Industrial ... vs Baroda Rayon Employees Ekta Union on 11 January, 2021
Bench: Vineet Kothari, Vineet Kothari Gopi
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
1. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
In
R/SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 15599of 2008
With
1.1 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORDIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.2 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORJOININGPARTY) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.3 MISC.CIVILAPPLICATION(FORRESTORATION) NO. 2 of 2019
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.4 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORJOININGPARTY) NO. 2 of 2020
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.5 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORJOININGPARTY) NO. 3 of 2015
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.6 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORCONDONATIONOF DELAY) NO. 3 of 2019
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.7 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORJOININGPARTY) NO. 3 of 2020
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.8 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORDIRECTION) NO. 4 of 2019
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.9 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORDIRECTION) NO. 4 of 2020
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.10 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORJOININGPARTY) NO. 5 of 2020
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
With
1.11 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORAMENDMENT) NO. 6 of 2019
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 948 of 2015
WITH
2. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 944 of 2015
With
2.1 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORJOININGPARTY) NO. 1 of 2019
Page 1 of 24
Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 14:00:51 IST 2021
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 944 of 2015
WITH
3. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 945 of 2015
WITH
4. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 946 of 2015
WITH
5. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 947 of 2015
WITH
6. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1131of 2015
In
SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 3916of 2008
With
6.1 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORSTAY) NO. 2 of 2015
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1131of 2015
In
SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 3916of 2008
WITH
7. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1132of 2015
In
SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 134 of 2006
WITH
7.1 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORSTAY) NO. 2 of 2015
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1132of 2015
In
SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 134 of 2006
WITH
8. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1286of 2015
With
8.1 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORSTAY) NO. 2 of 2015
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1286of 2015
WITH
Page 2 of 24
Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 14:00:51 IST 2021
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
9. R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1287of 2015
With
9.1 CIVILAPPLICATION(FORSTAY) NO. 2 of 2015
In R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 1287of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==============================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==============================================================================
BARODARAYONCORPORATIONLIMITED
Versus
BARODARAYONEMPLOYEESEKTAUNION& 3 other(s)
Appearance:
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo.948OF 2015:
MRSHALINMEHTASR. ADVOCATEWITHMRHAMESHC NAIDU(5335)for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MRJOYMATHEW(448)for the Respondent(s)No. 4
MRP C CHAUDHARI(5770)for the Respondent(s)No. 1
RULESERVED(64)for the Respondent(s)No. 2, 3
IN C.A. No.3/2015,6/2019and4/2020IN LPANo.948of 2015:
MR. SUDHIRNANAVATI,SR. ADVOCATEWITHMS. PV SHAHand MRS.M.SHAHfor the
applicant.
MRSHALINMEHTA,SR. ADVOCATEWITHMR. HC NAIDUfor the Respondent.
IN C.A. No.3/2020and 5/2020IN LPANo.948of 2015:
Page 3 of 24
Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 14:00:51 IST 2021
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
MR. JS UNWALA,SR. ADVOCATEWITHMRSJ MEHTAforthe applicant.
MRSHALINMEHTA,SR. ADVOCATEWITHMR. HC NAIDUfor the Respondent.
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo.944OF 2015:
MRDHAVALVYASfor the Appellant(s)No. 1 to 3
RULESERVED1-5, 6-9, 10-13, 14
MRPARITOSHCALLAfor Respondent4
MRSHALINMEHTAwith MR. H.C. NAIDUfor Respondent2
MRPC CHAUDHARYfor Respondent1.
IN C.A. NO.1OF 2019IN LPANO.944OF 2015:
DR. SONIAHURRAfor the Applicant
MR. SHALINMEHTASR. ADVOCATEfor MRHC NAIDUfor the RespondentCompany
MR. PC CHAUDHARYfor RespondentUnion
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo. 945 OF 2015:
MRDHAVALVYASfor the Appellant(s)No. 1 to 3
RULESERVED3-5, 6-9, 10-12, 13
MRPARITOSHCALLAfor Respondent4
MRSHALINMEHTAwith MR. H.C. NAIDUfor Respondent2
MRPC CHAUDHARYfor Respondent1.
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo. 946 OF 2015:
MRDHAVALVYASfor the Appellant(s)No. 1 to 3
RULESERVED3-5, 6-9, 10-13, 14
MRPARITOSHCALLAfor Respondent4
MRSHALINMEHTAwith MR. H.C. NAIDUfor Respondent2
MRPC CHAUDHARYfor Respondent1.
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo. 947 OF 2015:
MRDHAVALVYASfor the Appellant(s)No. 1 to 3
RULESERVED3-5, 6-9, 10-13, 14
MRPARITOSHCALLAfor Respondent4
MRSHALINMEHTAwith MR. H.C. NAIDUfor Respondent2
MRPC CHAUDHARYfor Respondent1.
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo. 1131OF 2015:
M/S. TRIVEDIANDGUPTAfor Appellant2
MRSHALINMEHTASR. ADVOCATEWITHMR. HC NAIDUfor the Appellant(s)No. 1
..... for Respondent
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo. 1132OF 2015:
M/S. TRIVEDIANDGUPTAfor Appellant2
MRSHALINMEHTASR. ADVOCATEWITHMR. HC NAIDUfor the Appellant(s)No. 1
..... for Respondents
Page 4 of 24
Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 14:00:51 IST 2021
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo. 1286OF 2015:
MRMANAVA MEHTAfor appellantNo.1-6, 7
MRSHALINMEHTASR. ADVOCATEWITHMRHCNAIDUfor respondentNo.5
MRPC Chaudharyfor respondentNo.4.
IN LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNo. 1287OF 2015:
MRMANAVA MEHTAfor appellantNo.1-6, 7
MRSHALINMEHTASR. ADVOCATEWITHMRHCNAIDUfor respondentNo.5
MRPC Chaudharyfor respondentNo.4.
==============================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)
1. These Letters Patent Appeals and Civil Applications are disposed
of by this common order.
2. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. H.C.
Naidu for the Appellant - Baroda Rayon Corporation Limited, brought to
our notice that the Appellant - Baroda Rayon Corporation Limited has
since entered into a Settlement with the workmen Union - Baroda Rayon
Employees Ekta Union on 22.10.2020, which puts an end to the litigation
between the contesting parties involved in the present Letters Patent
Appeals. He submitted that since part of the said Settlement Deed has
been implemented and the Settlement Deed, inter alia, envisages the
withdrawal of the pending litigation from this Court, the present Letters
Patent Appeals may be disposed of in terms of the said Settlement Deed.
3. The Consent Terms of the said Settlement Deed signed by Mr. J.K.
Jakhotiya on behalf of the Appellant - Baroda Rayon Corporation
Limited and Mr. Subhas T. Chaudhary, General Secretary of the Baroda
Rayon Employees Ekta Union, are quoted hereinbelow in extenso as a
scanned document for ready reference:-
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
4. There was some opposition to the disposal of the present Letters
Patent Appeals and Civil Applications and we have heard Mr. Sudhir
Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Prachiti V. Shah on behalf of
M/s. Gayatri Trading and Co., Mr. Jal Soli Unwala, learned Senior
Counsel with Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta on behalf of some of the workmen
and Dr. Sonia Hurra, learned counsel, on behalf of Muzawar Udyog
Samooh Pvt. Ltd., who have submitted before us that the present Letters
Patent Appeals need not be decided at this stage, as interest of their
respective clients are also involved.
5. Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Gayatri
Trading and Co., submitted that the said applicant had entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the workmen Union, i.e. the
respondent herein, for purchase of the assets of the Company at one point
of time and that if, in view of the present Settlement Deed, the present
Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of, they will be deprived of their right
to purchase the property of the appellant Company in pursuance of the
said Memorandum of Understanding entered with the workmen Union.
We cannot really appreciate how the Memorandum of Understanding
with the workmen Union can bind the Company, the owner of assets of
the Company. It is not a tripartite agreement.
6. Mr. Jal Soli Unwala, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that some
of the workmen are not agreeable to the said Settlement Deed and that
there was an Arbitration Award with respect to the unpaid wages of the
workmen at earlier point of time, which was challenged by the Appellant
- Company by way of petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, in which matter, now, the Appellant - Company
has filed an application for withdrawal of the same, in view of the
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
aforesaid Settlement Deed. He also sought to submit before us that the
Secretary of the respondent Union was not authorized to sign the said
Settlement Deed and he has to be paid 3% of the amount to be paid to all
the workmen vide clause-24 of the Settlement Deed. Seeking to introduce
a plea of malice in the said Settlement Deed, he submitted that the Letters
Patent Appeals need not be disposed of in terms of the said Settlement
Deed.
7. These contentions are vehemently opposed by learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, who submitted that a large majority of about
95% workmen have agreed and even signed individually to abide by the
Settlement and a minuscule minority cannot be allowed to upset the
same. They can establish their individual claims, if any, in the Industrial
Tribunal.
8. Dr. Sonia Hurra, learned counsel appearing for Muzawar Udyog
Samooh Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the applicant - Muzawar Udyog
Samooh Pvt. Ltd. had also given its bid earlier for some of the movable
assets of the appellant Company and therefore, the rights, if any, under
those bids, also need to be adjudicated.
9. We have perused the said Settlement Deed and the judgment dated
08.05.2015 of the learned Single Judge, out of which, the present Letters
Patent Appeals arise.
10. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the
judgment, we are of the considered opinion that there is no legal
impediment in disposal of the present Letters Patent Appeals before us in
terms of the said Settlement Deed dated 22.10.2020. In fact, the further
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
implementation and execution of the said Settlement Deed depends upon
the withdrawal of the litigation from the Courts of law, including the
present Letters Patent Appeals, which are referred to in the terms of
settlement deed quoted above. The lis between the parties, namely, the
Management and the Workmen of the Appellant - Company, for which
the writ petitions / civil applications were filed before the learned Single
Judge, essentially, arose for non-payment of their wages and since the
learned Single Judge made certain directions to the Management of the
Appellant - Company to make payment of the wages, even by selling of
the assets of the Appellant - Company, the Management of the Appellant
- Company preferred these Letters Patent Appeals before this Court. It
was during the long period between the filing of the writ petition before
the learned Single Judge in the year 2008 led by Special Civil
Application No.15599 of 2008 till date that certain activities /
developments had taken place, on the basis of which the aforesaid
interventions are sought to be made before us on behalf of the dissatisfied
minority workmen and intending buyers or bidders. However, this Court
cannot be called upon to decide such incidental issues, if any, in the
present Letters Patent Appeals. Therefore, their interventions in the
present appeals is not justified and such Applications are rejected.
11. This Court while disposing of the present Letters Patent Appeals in
terms of the Settlement Deed can only give a liberty to such Intervenors
or Applicants that they will be free to avail their legal remedies, if any, at
appropriate legal forums, other than the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, if any, right still subsists despite the aforesaid
Settlement Deed dated 22.10.2020. Apparently, the claims as raised
before us are fraught with determination of questions of facts and such
unfounded claims, without facts, established with evidence in accordance
C/LPA/948/2015 JUDGMENT
with law, should not deter us from disposing of the lis between the main
contesting parties, who have settled their dispute. Therefore, except the
aforesaid liberty, we do not see any reason not to dispose of these Letters
Patent Appeals and Civil Applications pending on our Board today in
terms of the said Settlement Deed dated 22.10.2020.
12. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeals and annexed Civil
Applications / Misc. Civil Applications are disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.05.2015 shall stand
substituted by this order. No order as to costs.
13. Mr. Jal Soli Unwala, learned Senior Counsel, made an oral request
that the present order passed today may be stayed for a period of four
weeks. We do not see any reason to accede to the said request of learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Unwala and accordingly, the request stands rejected.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J)
(GITA GOPI, J)
PRAVINKARUNAN
