-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1374 OF 2008 In WRIT PETITION NO.8645 OF 2003 Shri Rajendra Kamlakar : Applicant (Orig.Respondent) V/s. Union of India : Respondent (Central Railways) (Orig.Petitioner) ... Ms Surekha Jangam for the applicant. Ms Suchitra Kamble i/b. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2009. P.C. 1. The applicant (original respondent) has moved this application for vacating stay. 2. In the Writ Petition, the respondent herein (original petitioner) has challenged the order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act i.e. Second Labour Court, Pune. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has restrained the respondent from recovering penal rent from the monthly wages of the applicant. This Court has -: 2 :- granted an interim stay to the effect and operation of the said order. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the stay was granted because the respondent has stated that they would initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act and they have not done so. Apart from this fact, it is necessary to examine the prima facie merits of the matter. The authority has restrained the respondent from deducting penal rent from the monthly wages of the applicant, after observing that at no point of time any disciplinary action was initiated against the applicant, the respondent has alleged sub-letting. It appears that no evidence is brought on record by the respondent to point out sub-letting by the applicant. In this view of the matter, having regard to the fact that it is a question of wages which means livelihood and survival, I am of view that the stay is liable to be vacated and is hereby vacated. This order shall not come in the way of the respondent for taking any action in respect of the applicant. Order accordingly. S.A. BOBDE, J.