1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2008 M/s.H.M.A.Super Garment Accessories. ..Petitioner. V/s. Arun Ramdas Kapadia. ..Respondent. Mr.D.A.Athavale for Petitioner. Mr.P.M.Mokashi for Respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent, as short question is involved. Mr.P.M.Mokashi waives notice for Respondents. 3. This Petition takes exception to the Order passed by the Presiding Officer of the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai dated 23rd May, 2007 on Restoration Application(IDA) No.75 of 2006 Exh.D, whereby the Application Exh. C-4 preferred by the Petitioner for extension of time to pay the amount by specifying the period till 31st March, 2003 came to be rejected. As a consequence of that order, the Award passed on 1st 2 July, 2006 in Reference (IDA) No.414 of 2002 stood revived. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner after the Award was passed had prayed for setting aside of the Award and for restoration of the Reference proceeding, to be decided on its own merits, after giving opportunity to the Petitioner. That application was allowed by the Labour Court on 19th April, 2007 by passing following conditional order: "O R D E R 1. Application under Rule 26(2) of Industrial Dispute (Bombay) Rules 1957 is hereby allowed. 2. On depositing the back wages to the extent of 30% of the Opponent, the exparte award passed on 1-7-2006 is set aside and Ref(IDA) No.414/2002 is restored to original stage. 3. The applicant is granted the time of 3 weeks to deposit the aforesaid amount in the court. 4. No order as to costs." The conditions specified in the above said Order were required to be carried out within three weeks from the date of the Order. Instead the Petitioner filed Application on 7th May, 2007 before the same Court praying for following reliefs: "3. The Applicant, therefore, pray that 3 the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to modify the order dated 19th April, 2007 by specifying the period of 30% back wages from the alleged date of termination till the date of closure of the Firm i.e. till 31.3.2003 and also to grant three week time to arrange and deposit the amounts." The Labour Court after considering the rival stand, negatived the explanation offered by the Petitioner on the reasoning that the same was after thought and was being raised only to obviate the claim of the Respondent. On the said reasoning the Application came to be rejected by the impugned Order dated 23rd May, 2007. While rejecting the claim of the Petitioner to specify the period of backwages till 31st March, 2003, the Labour Court passed no order on the relief claimed by the Petitioner for extending time for payment of the amounts specified in terms of the Order dated 19th April, 2007. 4. The limited grievance made before this Court is that the Labour Court ought to have considered that request of the Petitioner independently while it was inclined to reject the claim of the Petitioner of specifying the backwages only till 31st March, 2003. In other words, the Petitioner is not questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Labour Court that it was not possible to limit the backwages only till 31st March, 2003, as was prayed in the 4 Application Exh.C-4. In that sense, the only question that needs to be considered is whether the Labour Court ought have passed consequential order of giving further time of three weeks to the Petitioner to deposit the amount of backwages specified in terms of the Order dated 19th April, 2007. 5. Although the Respondent has resisted this Petition, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner can be given one opportunity to comply with the conditional order dated 19th April, 2007 provided the Petitioner deposits the amount in terms of the said Order within two weeks from today. 6. Besides, depositing the amount within two weeks from today, the Petitioner will have to compensate the Respondent No.1 with cost quantified at Rs.10,000/- for the legal expenses incurred by the Respondent on account of the Application Exh. C-4, as also the present Petition. 7. Accordingly, this Petition is partly allowed by modifying the operative order passed by the Labour Court, which is impugned in this Petition limited to the extent of permitting the Petitioner to deposit the amount payable in terms of the Order dated 19th 5 April, 2007 within two weeks from today and also on condition that the Petitioner shall pay costs to the Respondent No.1 quantified at Rs.10,000/- for the present being condition precedent for showing indulgence to the Petitioner. In other words, reference proceeding will stand restored in terms of the Order dated 19th April, 2007, to be proceeded on its own merits in accordance with the law, subject to the Petitioner complying with the above condition. 8. It is made clear that payment of costs quantified in this Order to be paid to the Respondent No.1 is in addition to any other claim of the Respondent towards delay in payment or otherwise. 9. Petition disposed off on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)