vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.905 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.905 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.905 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3447 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.3447 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.3447 OF 2005 Arun Digambar Khole ... Applicant V/s. Internet India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.A. Kulkarni for Applicant Mr.C.U. Singh with Neel Helekar for Respondent No.1 Mr.A.S. Rao with Ms.Saroj Shinde for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 4, 2008 AUGUST 4, 2008 AUGUST 4, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition has already been admitted on 7.6.2005 and an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) has been granted. The matter has come up for confirmation of the ad-interim relief. The workman has filed civil application No.905 of 2006 for vacating the ad-interim relief which was granted. 2. Heard. 3. The issue involved is whether the petitioner was liable to reinstate the workman who was originally working with Respondent No.2. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the complainant i.e. the workman on his original post and to pay him backwages w.e.f. : 2 : 22.4.1983 till the reinstatement. The petitioner claims to have taken over the undertaking of Respondent No.2 from 1996 onwards. Hence, the Industrial Court has directed it to pay backwages w.e.f. 6.9.1996 onwards. According to the petitioner, the workman’s name did not figure on the list of workers who they have decided to reemploy after the undertaking was taken over by them and therefore, he is not entitled to be reinstated nor is he entitled for backwages. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that all throughout he was ready and willing to work at the establishment for Respondent No.1. In fact, an ex-parte order was passed on 17.7.1985 after which he has not been reinstated by either Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the workman was made to work for about 2 hours on a particular day after which he was informed that since the company had filed an application for restoration of the application (ULP) No.658 of 1998, there is no need to reinstate him. In my opinion, although there is no need to reinstate the workman at this stage, it would be necessary to secure the backwages payable to him. Payment of backwages is like a money decree and therefore must be secured. 4. The interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted on condition that the petitioners deposit in this Court the backwages payable to the workman from : 3 : 6.9.1999 till today within a period of eight week from today. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be invested in a nationalised bank, initially for a period of three years, to be renewed thereafter. 5. Civil application is disposed of accordingly.