1 RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 24409 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5005 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Applicants Vs Chandrakant Babu Washitkar .. Respondent WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 24411 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5006 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Applicants Vs Sanjay Venkatrao Shinde .. Respondent Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for the Applicants Mrs. Anjali N. Helekar for the Respondents Mr. R.D. Bhedasgaonkar, S.D.O. present. CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 28th JUNE, 2010 IN CHAMBER AT 2.40 P.M. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner - original petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5005 of 2009 and 5006 of 2009 represents the management 2.rpwst24409­09 2 of Koyna Dam Administrative Instrument Department. The respondents are the original complainants who claimed that they were working as laboratory assistants in the observatory run by the petitioners. They had preferred U.L.P. No. 199 of 2003 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur against denial of benefits of permanency. By judgment and order dated 01.02.2006, the Industrial Court, Kolhapur partly allowed the complaint and declared that the Respondents therein i.e present petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practice within the scope of item, 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act and the respondents therein i.e present petitioners were directed to cease and desist from the said unfair labour practice. By the said order, the present petitioner was also directed to make the complainants permanent in employment on full time basis with all consequential benefits to which they are entitled under law w.e.f 16.10.1995 as recommended by the respondents, i.e the petitioners herein in their letter dated 10.02.1999. 3. The petitioners challenged the said order in this Court by preferring Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006. By order dated 06.07.2007, this Court granted stay on the condition that the respondents - workmen shall be paid salary from the date of the order which is payable to other full time persons working as laboratory assistant. Said order was challenged 2.rpwst24409­09 3 by the petitioners by filing L.P.A. (St) No. 27583 of 2007 later numbered as L.P.A No. 117 of 2008. In the said L.P.A., no stay was granted to the order dated 06.07.2007. Thereafter, L.P.A. came to be dismissed on 02.04.2008. 4. In the meanwhile, prior to filing of the writ petition No. 8373 of 2006, both the respondents - workmen had filed application under 33(C)(2) being application Nos. 8 of 2006 and 9 of 2006. The said applications came to be allowed by the learned Labour Judge by order dated 25.11.2008 and the opponent therein i.e the present petitioner was directed to pay to each of the workmen an amount of Rs. 6,51,360/- along with interest @ 9% p.a within three months from the date of order. Being aggrieved by this order, W.P. Nos. 5005 of 2009 and 5006 of 2009 came to be preferred by the petitioner. 5. Both these petitions came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 30.07.2009. In the said order, this Court observed that the petitioners had not implemented the order dated 06.07.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO. 8373 of 2006 till the order was passed by the Labour Court. It further observed that the order granting stay dated 06.07.2007 was a conditional order i.e stay was granted on the condition therein being complied with. The said condition was, "the respondent workmen are paid salary 2.rpwst24409­09 4 which is payable to other full time employees working as Laboratory Assistants. This salary shall be payable from today." In the order dated 30.07.2009, it was further observed that as the condition precedent was not complied with, stay stands vacated. Observing thus, these writ petitions came to be dismissed. 6. Now, these review petitions have been preferred by the petitioners stating that in fact, the order dated 06.07.2007 has been complied with. Learned AGP states on instructions that there is compliance of the order dated 06.07.2007 but, even as of today, nothing was pointed out to me to show that compliance was made with the order dated 06.07.2007 till passing of the order dated 30.07.2009 in Writ Petition Nos. 5005 of 2009 and 5006 of 2009. 7. However, today learned AGP states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners, the petitioner is willing to deposit in this Court an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in respect of each of the respondents. He further stated that the said amount will be deposited in this Court by 15th July, 2010. 8. The petitioner is allowed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- [ Rs. Three Lacs ] in respect of each of the 2.rpwst24409­09 5 respondents vide cheque nos. 350301 and 350302 dated 11.06.2010. The said amount is to be deposited in pending Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006 by 15th July, 2010. In view of the fact that almost half the amount in respect of each of the respondents is being deposited in this Court, I am inclined to revive the order of stay dated 06.07.2007. If the said amount is deposited by 15th July, 2010, stay granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006 vide its order dated 06.07.2007 will continue to operate till disposal of writ petition no. 8373 of 2006. 9. On petitioners depositing the cheques, the Registry to invest the said amount in a nationalized bank initially for a period of two years and thereafter renew it from time to time for a period of one year at a time. 10. With above directions, review petitions are disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 2.rpwst24409­09 6 2.rpwst24409­09