1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.278 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5284 OF 2009 (Essae Teraoka Limited vs. Shri Yogesh s/o Puranand Sharma) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.D. Shukla, Advocate for appellant. -------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 12, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. In this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 13/4/2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5284/2009 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 12/6/2009 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.418/2006 has been allowed. The Industrial Court by this order has directed the appellant to pay subsistence allowance as per law to the respondent for the period from 1/2/2007 to 2 30/9/2007. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has paid the subsistence allowance to the respondent and without taking this fact into consideration, the learned Single Judge has issued direction to deposit 50% of the subsistence allowance for the period from 1/2/2007 to 30/9/2007 in the Labour Court in the pending ULPA complaint. . We have perused the impugned order. We do not find any merit in the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the appellant and for the reasons recorded in the impugned order and more particularly in the following paragraph of the impugned order, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal : “However, during hearing both the Counsel stated that the matter should not be remanded back to the Industrial Court as his complaint is also pending before the Labour Court. In view of this position, the petitioner/employer shall deposit 50% of the subsistence allowance of respondent from 01.02.2007 to 30.09.2007 before the Labour Court in pending ULPA complaint. The Labour Court shall not permit the 3 respondent to withdraw it. Deposit of subsistence allowance as mentioned above shall be without prejudice to the contentions and right of petitioner in the matter. The Labour Court shall adjudicate the complaint finally and while doing so, record a finding upon status of respondent and also upon the payment or non payment of subsistence allowance to him during the relevant period. As per the said adjudication, the amount in deposit shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the party succeeding before it.” In our opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the impugned order. Hence, letters patent appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj