1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1298 OF 2011 (Swetal Enterprises vs. The Assistant Labour Commissioner & Chairman & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. OCTOBER 10, 2011. Heard finally Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Puranik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manoj Rajan Pillai, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri Kakani, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. The controversy needs to be looked into in view of the orders dated 15.03.2011. The learned Senior Advocate states that after those orders, Respondents No. 2 & 3 have continued to function and an amount of Rs.6,70,800/- charged by Railways to the petitioner towards demurrage and wharfage have been deducted by the petitioner from the bills payable to Respondent No. 1 – Board. In view of this deduction, the learned Senior Advocate states that he has instructions, not to press amended prayer clauses 2 & 2(A) in the petition. He, however, states that Respondent No. 1 – Board has to look into the grievance 2 of Respondents No. 2 & 3 and to pass appropriate orders to see that situation is not again created. Shri Manoj Rajan Pillai, learned counsel states that Respondent No. 1 is ready and willing to look into the grievance of either Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 2, if made in accordance with law. Shri Kakani, learned counsel states that Respondent No. 3 had filed an independent writ petition vide W.P. No. 1432 of 2011 before this Court and it has been withdrawn. He contends that in this situation, there is no matter pending before Respondent No.1. Shri Dubey, learned counsel points out that representation was already made to Respondent No. 1 – Board on 05.03.2011. He contends that vide order dated 10.02.2011, Respondent No. 3 was permitted to take up 68% of work and Respondent No. 2 was allotted remaining 32% work. On 08.03.2011, the work of Respondent No. 2 was increased by 4% and the work allotted to Respondent No. 3 was reduced to 64%. He contends that this change in proportion/ quota is arbitrary and without any information/ hearing to Respondent No. 2. He further makes a grievance about deduction of amount of Rs.6,70,800/- on account of demurrage and wharfage from bills payable to Respondent No. 1 by the petitioner. We have perused the orders passed by this Court on 26.04.2011 in Writ Petition No. 1432 of 2011. We find that representation made by present Respondent 3 No. 3 on 05.03.2011 is still not decided. It is apparent that if that representation is decided either way, the other party can take recourse to proper legal remedies. Hence, in view of the said orders dated 26.04.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 of 2011, we find that the grievance of the petitioner in present matter does not survive. In the light of orders dated 15.03.2011, we, therefore, dispose of present writ petition by directing Respondent No. 1 to look into representation dated 05.03.2011 made by Respondent No. 3 in accordance with law at the earliest. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.