The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of the High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the limited circumstances under which it can be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule.

2. These petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 21.07.2020 passed below Exh.11 in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 22, 12, 20, 17, 16 and 21 of 2018 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Matar. By the said applications O.39 R.(1) and O.38 R.5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioners had prayed for injunction as well as the retiral benefits, which came to be rejected.

3. Though served and sufficient opportunity was given, the respondent has chosen not to appear before the Court, leaving no option but to proceed with the matter.

4. Heard, Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate for the petitioners. The bone of contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that since the petitioners do not fall within the definition of ‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and were working in Managerial capacity, suit is the only remedy, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate such an aspect of the matter and thereby, has materially erred in rejecting the applications. Accordingly, he urged that these petitions may be allowed in the interest of justice, setting aside the impugned orders and to grant the reliefs prayed for vide applications Exh.11.

5. Regard being had to the submissions advanced and considering the material on record vis-a-vis perusing the impugned orders, following facts emerge:

(i) The petitioners were appointed in Apar Limited.

(ii) Later, the company became GE Apar Lighting Pvt. Ltd. and the services of the petitioners came to be confirmed in the said company.

(iii) then the petitioners were re-designated as Officer respectively.

(iv) thereafter, the petitioners were promoted to the senior Officer posts.

(v) then the company transferred to CEMA Electric Lighting (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the services of the petitioners were transferred with the acquiring company without any break/interruption.

(vi) in 2018 termination letters with notice pay were issued to the petitioner, which were accepted by the petitioners with objection.

(vii) suit came to be filed by the petitioners for various reliefs.

(viii) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1079 of 2018 and allied matters, in view of settlement between the parties, the same came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.03.2019.

(ix) Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2019, filed by the employees who were not part of the Union, for recall of aforesaid order, came to be rejected vide order dated 08.07.2019. Following order was passed:

“No case is made out to recall the order dated 29.3.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1079 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 3376 of 2018, keeping it open for the applicant to take appropriate measure in accordance with law.

Application is rejected.”

5.1 In the light of the aforesaid factual background, if the orders impugned herein are referred to, the learned trial Judge has mentioned that “under Section 2(p) r/w. Rule 62 under the provisions of ID Act, settlement has been arrived at between the Workmen Union and the defendant company and the said settlement was treated as part of the order and the parties were directed to abide by the said settlement and hence also, the civil Court has not jurisdiction to decide the application of the plaintiff.”

5.2 At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the order dated 29.03.2019 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1079 of 2018, which reads as under:

“Learned advocates for the parties states that parties have arrived settlement under Section 2(P) r/w Rule 62 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 outside the Court.

In view of the settlement between the parties, the appeals as well as civil applications are disposed of with a direction to parties respectively to abide by terms and conditions of the settlement and the settlement is treated as part of the order.”

5.3 In view of the aforesaid order passed in the