ORDER : 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 herein-below in extenso as a scanned document for ready reference:- Image 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. and 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. 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 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. 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 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 with law, should not deter us from disposing of the lis between the main contesting parties, who have settled their dispute. 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 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.