: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5847 OF 1999 Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. K.S. Raskar & Ors. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5851 OF 1999 Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. D.R. Pande & Ors. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5856 OF 1999 Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. D.S. Shelar & Ors. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5860 OF 1999 Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. V.J. Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5853 OF 1999 Padamsee Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. Y.S. Tamboli & Ors. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5854 OF 1999 Padamsee Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. S.S. Chavan & Ors. .. Respondents : 2 : Mr. K.S. Bapat for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 8 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the employer-Company against the orders passed in several Revision Applications. The Revision Applications were filed against the orders passed by the Labour Court, Pune granting interim relief to the workmen i.e. the respondents in these Writ Petitions. It appears that Revision Applications were dismissed. The employer-Company was directed to pay the workmen costs quantified @ Rs.1,000/- in each Revision Application. Undisputedly these amounts have already been paid by the employer- Company to the workmen. 2. The complaints pending before the Labour Court, Pune have already been allowed. The workmen were reinstated pursuant to the final orders in the complaints. It appears that the employer-Company has been closed down thereafter. : 3 : 3. The only dispute raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the costs of Rs.1,000/- directed to be paid to the workmen by the Industrial Court, Pune was excessive and, in fact, no cost should have been imposed. 4. In my view the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Company is unacceptable. The order directing costs to be paid is a discretionary order which need not been interfered with in a Writ Petition. The amount payable as costs is not excessive in my opinion and, therefore, the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Company in this regard is not acceptable. Furthermore, the amount has already been paid to the workmen and in these circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, impugned in these Writ Petitions. 5. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. 6. Rule discharged. 7. No orders as to costs.