1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.457 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.585 OF 1999 Union of India ..Petitioner. Vs. Rampal Singh and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr. Arshad Shaikh with Mr. V.M. Parkar for Respondents 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17 to 19 and 22. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 10th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Notice of Motion has been taken out for a direction that Respondent Nos.1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17 to 19 and 22 be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Union of India and interest accrued thereon, if any. 2. A Learned Single Judge of this Court had by an order dated 18th July, 2002 set aside a judgment dated 27th March, 1996 of the 2 Labour Court on applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being application Nos.LC-2/156 to 177/92. The Union of India carried the judgment in appeal and as a matter of fact, three appeals were filed against the decision of the Single Judge in Writ Petitions 583, 585 and 669 of 1999. The Division Bench held that the Learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the Writ Petitions since service had not been effected on all the Respondent workmen to the three Writ Petitions. As a matter of fact in Writ Petition 585 of 1995 several of the Respondent workmen had also died in the meantime. In the circumstances, the Division Bench by its judgment dated 5th January, 2009 set aside the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 18th July, 2002 passed in the three Writ Petitions and remanded the proceedings back to the Learned Single Judge. While doing so, the Division Bench passed the following operative order : “4. Within a period of two weeks from today, the appellants shall supply to the respondent – Union of India through their Advocate the calculations of overtime wages that the respondents are liable to pay pursuant to the order of the Labour Court impugned in the petitions and within a period of ten weeks of receiving the calculations subject to 3 their rights to challenge the correctness of calculations, the respondent – Union of India shall deposit that amount in this Court within due intimation to the Advocate appearing for appellants. The said amount be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit appropriate period. In case the amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, all the three appeals shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to the Court. Within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of deposit of the amount, the respondents shall complete service of rule nisi in all the appeals on all the respondents in the writ petitions, if necessary by bringing on record legal representatives of the deceased appellants. In case the respondents do no complete service of notice on unserved parties within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of deposit of the amount, all the three appeals shall stand dismissed without any reference to the Court with liberty to the appellants to apply to the Court for appropriate order in relation to the amount that may be deposited.” 3. The direction in paragraph 4 to the effect that the three appeals shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court upon the failure of the Union of India to complete service of notice on the unserved parties within sixteen weeks was corrected by a further order dated 27th January, 2009. As corrected the order states that in the event that service was not completed on the unserved parties, all the three Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed without further 4 reference to the Court. In pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench the Union of India is stated to have deposited an amount of Rs.62,67,152/- under a letter dated 10th August, 2009 to which a statement of computation has been annexed. 4. The Petitions were dismissed for want of prosecution on 6th April, 2009 since none appeared for the Union of India. On Motions for restoration a Learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 20th July, 2009 disposed of the Motions by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 6th April, 2009. However, the Learned Single Judge observed that the Writ Petitions shall not stand restored since as a consequence of the order passed by the Division Bench on 5th January, 2009, the Petitions already stood dismissed for want of service on the unserved Respondent workmen within the stipulated period of sixteen weeks. The Union of India took out Motions for extension of time to complete service. Those Notices of Motion have also been dismissed by the Division Bench on 22nd September, 2009. The Division Bench observed that the Union of India had not taken any steps to comply 5 with the order within the stipulated period “which resulted in dismissal of the above Writ Petitions on 6th April, 2009”. The application for extension has been dismissed. 5. There can be no doubt about the consequence that ensues upon the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India sought to urge that the Writ Petitions would not stand dismissed but they would stand dismissed only as against the unserved workmen. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the peremptory direction issued by the Division Bench in its order dated 5th January, 2009 which was to the effect that all the three Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court in case the Union of India does not complete the service of notice on the unserved parties within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of deposit. This is also how the earlier order and its consequences were construed by the Division Bench in its subsequent order dated 22nd September, 2009. The Division Bench by its order dated 5th January, 2009 has granted liberty to the workmen to apply to the Court for an 6 appropriate order in relation to the amount that is deposited in the event that the Petitions stand dismissed. 6. The workmen would be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the Union of India upon the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. However, counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has stated before the Court that the filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court is in contemplation. He therefore submitted that sufficient time may be granted to the Union of India in the event that Special Leave Petitions are filed. Moreover, it has been submitted before the Court that before any amount is disbursed, the Prothonotary and Senior Master should be directed to verify the identify of the workmen or in the event that any of the Applicant workmen is dead, of the legal representative from the pension book. In the circumstances, the following order is passed : i) The Applicants to the Notice of Motion viz. Respondent Nos.1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17 to 19 and 22 are permitted to withdraw the 7 amount deposited against each of the aforesaid Applicants as borne out from the statement filed on behalf of the Union of India (Exhibit 5 to the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion 457 of 2009); ii) Before allowing the disbursal of the amounts, the Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to verify the identify of the concerned Applicants and shall insist upon the production of the necessary proof of identity including, as the case may, the production of the pension book; iii)In order to enable the Union of India to have sufficient time to pursue its remedies against the judgments dated 5th January, 2009 and 22nd September, 2009, there shall be a direction to the effect that the present order shall be enforced on and after 28th January, 2010. *****