IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.39/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1960/2007 Tukaram Awate Appellant/Original Res.no.1 Vs. Janta Printing Press Respondent/Original Petitioner Mr.Abhay Nevagi with Mr.Rajesh Mirchandani i/b M/s Paras Kuhad & Associates advocate for the appellant Mr.Dilip Mandavia advocate for the respondents CORAM: S.B.Mhase , & Prasanna B.Varale , J.J. DATED : July,29th ,2008. P.C. Heard both sides. The order passed by Single Judge on 27- 11-2007 in Writ Petition no.1960/2007 is under challenge. The Single Judge has granted Rule and stayed the operation of the Judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 15.4.2006 . Against this order the employee has approached this Court . It is admitted position that the appellant / employee was working with respondent Janata Printing 2 Press since 1972 . Up to June ,2003 wages were paid regularly. However, according to the employer /respondent he has paid wages up to October,2003 .The controversy started on age of superannuation. According to the respondent/employer the appellant/employee has completed 60 years and therefore, he is superannuated and therefore the wages were not paid. When called upon the appellant produced the documents of his age viz . Ration card , wherein his age is shown as 52 years. So also the voters' list is showing his age as 48 years . Voters' list is of 2006 . Thus, in view of these documents the appellant claims that he is not of 60 years and not liable for superannuation. 2] As against this the employer has not produced any evidence. The employer was called upon to produce the service book ,but he has not maintained the service book , instead he has produced attendance register . Apart from this it is brought to the notice that there was medical examination at the direction of the Court , however , that medical certificate was not proved by examining the said doctor and therefore ,there is no evidence in support of the contention of the respondent . Under these circumstances it was not a case for grant of stay. 3] Apart from this , this Bench is reported by both the counsels that the appellant is working with the respondent as on today also , 3 but he has not been paid the wages. It is well settled rule that whenever the work is taken from the worker the payment should be made to him. The employer cannot take the work and refuse to pay . Therefore, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the employer be directed to deposit the wages of the appellant was justified and the Single Judge committed an error in not granting said prayer. Therefore , we set aside the order dt.27.11.2007 to the extent of grant of stay and refusing to direct the employer to deposit amount in this Court . The order to the extent of Rule is confirmed since it is not under challenge. We hereby direct the respondent to deposit the wages of the appellant from July, 2003 onwards in this Court within a period of four weeks from today . If the amount is not deposited within period of four weeks the appellant is at liberty to execute the order against the respondent . The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (Prasanna B.Varale,J.) (S.B.Mhase, J.)