KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5162 of 2010 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2011 M/s. Bharat Gears Limited .. Appellant vs. The workmen represented by Association of Engineering Workers and another ....Respondents Mr. V.P. Vaidya, instructed by Mr. P.C. Pavaskar, for the appellant. Mr. N.M. Ganguly for the first respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: JUNE 09, 2011. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26th July, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 5162 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge rejected the petition filed by the appellant by which the appellant had challenged the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court dated 24th February, 2010 below Exh. 449 in a pending reference. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the concerned persons, after taking benefit of receiving certain amount from the employer at the time of KPP -2- tendering resignation, cannot maintain the reference without re-depositing the amount already received. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the concerned persons have already taken the benefit by receiving the amount which amount they have utilised for their own benefits and subsequently they have raised this dispute. It is submitted that under these circumstances, the reference at the instance of the said persons is not competent especially when they have not shown their willingness to re-deposit the amount with the Company. Though argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is attractive, it is required to be noted that the appellant should have taken this point at the earliest. Even this point was not raised by the appellant before the Labour Court. The matter is still pending before the Labour Court. 3. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the reference is going on and evidence is also recorded. It is at the stage of argument. Considering the said fact, we would not like to exercise our discretion by interfering with the order of the learned single Judge at such a belated stage of the proceedings as the reference is about 9 years old. 4. Be that as it may, since the matter is at the interlocutory stage, we would not like to entertain this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. It will be open to the appellant to raise these points before the Labour Court during the course of arguments in the pending reference and it is for the KPP -3- Labour Court to consider the same in accordance with law. It is for the Labour Court also to consider as to whether any relief can be given to the concerned persons without re-depositing the amount with the Company. All these aspects are left to the consideration of the Labour Court. If the award of the Labour Court is against the appellant, it will be open to the appellant even to raise this point in further proceedings. Suffice it to say that the points canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is kept open for the consideration of the Labour Court during the course of arguments. 5. Subject to what is stated above, the Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil Applications are dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.