-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6422 OF 2005 M/s. Palmon Exports... ... ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors... ... Respondents. Mr. I. R. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Ms. P.S.Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.N.M.Ganguli for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R. M. LODHA & CORAM : R. M. LODHA & CORAM : R. M. LODHA & NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2006. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2006. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2006. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : Heard Mr. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. 2. It is not in dispute that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25th January, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, no interim order staying the implementation of the order dated 25th January, 2005 was operative. Obviously, in the absence of any stay order, the respondent no.3 was entitled to enforce the order dated 25th January, 2005 by making application under Section 33C(1)(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In exercise of the power conferred upon the Labour Court, the recovery certificate came to be issued for recovery of the dues as per the order dated 25th January, 2005. -: 2 :- 3. The recovery certificate cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine. 4. Needless to say, in the event of the order dated 25th January, 2005 being quashed and set aside in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall restitute the amount received by him pursuant to the impugned recovery certificate. Sd/- (R. M. LODHA, J.) (R. M. LODHA, J.) (R. M. LODHA, J.) Sd/- (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)