WP(l) 1968 of 10 1 SSK/os/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING ) NO.1968 OF 2010 M/s. Skypak Services Specialist Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The Collector of Mumbai Suburban & Anr. .....Respondents. Mr.B. K. Ashoka i/b. Bekay Legal, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Chetan Acharekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. N. C. Patel, ‘A’ Panel Counsel for Govt. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: The petitioner is engaged in courier services. Some workmen filed a complaint in 7th Labour Court at Bombay under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. On 30th July, 2008, the Labour Court disposed of the complaint by declaring that the petitioner has indulged in unfair labour practice and directed the petitioner to reinstate the workmen with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 16th February, 2000. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has carried revision applications to the Industrial Court being Revision Applications (ULP) No. 192/09, 209/09 and 210/09, which are pending in the Industrial Court, Mumbai. Admittedly, the respondents/employees took out an execution application. According to the petitioner, on 27th November, 2009, an ex-parte order was passed issuing WP(l) 1968 of 10 2 SSK/os/ recovery certificate pursuant to the Labour Court’s order dated 30th July, 2008. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a restoration application, challenging the said order which is pending before 7th Labour Court, Mumbai. 2. We are informed that the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan, challenging the recovery certificate which has been dismissed. It appears that the warrant of arrest has been issued by the 1st respondent-Collector in execution of the recovery certificate. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court praying inter-alia that the warrant of arrest be quashed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the employees. It may be noted at this stage that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the order passed by us, the petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in this Court. In our opinion, since the revisions filed by the petitioner challenging the Labour Court’s order dated 30th July, 2008 directing the petitioner to re-instate the employees with full back wages are pending, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the Industrial Court, where the revisions are pending, to dispose of the said revision applications at the earliest. WP(l) 1968 of 10 3 SSK/os/ 4. In the circumstances of the case, the following order will meet the ends of justice: a) The Registrar O.S./Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to transfer the amount of Rs.8 lakhs which the petitioner has deposited in this Court to the 1st respondent i.e. to the Collector of Mumbai Suburban (Recovery Branch) Mumbai, where the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. b) The Industrial Court, Mumbai, is directed to hear and dispose of the revision applications of the petitioner being Revision Applications (ULP) No. 192/09, 209/09 and 210/09 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by him. c) The amount of Rs.13 lakhs which is lying with the 1st respondent shall abide by the final order which the Industrial Court will pass in the aforesaid revision applications. d) Till such time as the Industrial Court disposes of the revision applications, the warrant of arrest shall remain stayed. WP(l) 1968 of 10 4 SSK/os/ 5. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the case. The Industrial Court will consider the submissions of the petitioner as well as submissions of the employees and dispose of the revision applications independently and in accordance with law. Needless to say that it will be open to the employees to make an application for withdrawal of the amount which is deposited with the 1st respondent in the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court shall consider the said application independently and in accordance with law. 6. The petition is disposed of in aforestated terms. (R. V. MORE, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)