:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2009 Dongre and Dongre Associates through its partner Rajeev Dongre ..Petitioner versus Deepak Ramchandra Prabhune & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. S. M. Paranjape for the Petitioner. Nitin A. Kulkarni for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. This is a petition filed by the employer against the Order of the Industrial Court varying the interim order granted by the Labour Court and directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the wages to the respondent - complainant from the date of the order till the decision of the complaint by the lower court on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Judgment of this Court reported in 1994(1) Mh.L.J. 1004 [Municipal 1994(1) Mh.L.J. 1004 [Municipal 1994(1) Mh.L.J. 1004 [Municipal :2: Corporation of City of Amravati vs. Ashok Corporation of City of Amravati vs. Ashok Corporation of City of Amravati vs. Ashok Ramkrishna Kamble & Ors.], Ramkrishna Kamble & Ors.], Ramkrishna Kamble & Ors.], where the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that where the issue of jurisdiction arises, then it would be appropriate to decide that issue before deciding the application for interim relief. This Court, in that case set aside the order of the interim relief and directed the Labour Court to allow parties to lead evidence and upon such evidence having been led to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly in the present case, the petitioner had raised the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In fact, according to the petitioner, the petitioner does not run an industry at all and therefore there is no question of there being relationship of employer and employee. Whatever be the merits of the arguments. I am in respectful agreement with the view of Sirpurkar, J. (as he then was) and accordingly direct that the Labour Court should decide the question of its jurisdiction before granting any further interim reliefs to the respondent No. 1. The amount of 50% of wages to be paid to the respondent No.1 shall be deposited in the Labour Court by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. The amount shall be :3: disbursed according to the decision of the Labour Court on the application for interim relief after deciding the question of jurisdiction on the basis of evidence that will be led by the parties. The learned Labour Court is directed to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and the application for interim relief within a period of six months from the next date. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 27.1.2009. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. As stated earlier, the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the wages before the Labour Court. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)