1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4694 OF 2009 Mr. Arvind Krishna Mali. ....Petitioner V/s. 1. Mr.L.D. Chaudhari I/c Director, Sports & Youth Services, Maharashtra State & ors. ....Respondents Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court setting aside an order dated 9th May, 2006, in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No.57 of 2005. The Petitioner contended that the Respondents had not complied with the order of the Industrial Court dated 20th 2 October, 2005. The impugned order records that even the deposit of the amount had not been made within the time stipulated. However, the amounts which were directed to be deposited within ten days were, in fact, subsequently deposited. In these circumstances, the learned Member did not think it necessary to issue process and, therefore, quashed the process. The order dated 20th October, 2005 required the Respondents to deposit the Petitioner’s wages from 1st August 2008 onwards within ten days from the date of the order. I am in respectful agreement that the delay in doing so does not warrant the issue of process. 3. However, the matter does not end there. The said order dated 20th October, 2005 also required the Respondents to deposit the wages of the complainant every month and entitled the Petitioner to withdraw the same till final disposal of the main complaint. 4. On behalf of the Respondents it was, however, submitted that it is now not necessary for the Respondents to comply with the latter directions inasmuch as the Petitioner has not been continued in service with effect from 1st September, 2006. 3 5. Till that date, the Petitioner has been paid. Whether the Respondents are not bound to comply with the order dated 20th October, 2005, directing them to deposit the wages every month has not been considered in the impugned order and judgment. There is no dispute in this regard. It would normally not be necessary to remand the matter as this issue could be decided by this court itself. However, as there is some dispute regarding the interpretation of these orders, it would be convenient to remand the matter in the event of either of the parties requiring to have the order clarified. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The matter shall be heard afresh by the Industrial Court only as regards the alleged non compliance with clause (v) of the order dated 20th October, 2005. 7. Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.