1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4248/2008 (Akola Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sangh vs. Sheshrao R. Mhasaye and another.) ====================================== CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 21 st NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Shri S.D.Chopde, for the petitioner i.e. employer and Advocate Smt. P.M.Chandekar, for respondents. The District Judge II, Akola, has by impugned order dated 11.8.2008 directed the petitioners to produce certificate as required by Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, within 15 days. The said order has been passed in M.C.A. No. 21/2006, which is an appeal filed by the employer challenging the judgment and order dated 16th January, 2007, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 & Labour Court, Akola in P.W.A. Case No. 3/99 in proceedings under Section 15 of the said Act. It is not in dispute that the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) require petitioner to produce a certificate that amount as directed by the Authority has been deposited by it i.e. the employer. Admittedly, the said certificate had not been produced. 2 Advocate Chopde argues that after filing an appeal, the principal amount as ordered by the authority has been deposited with the appellate Court in ignorance of the provisions and that amount has also been accepted by the office of that Court. He further states that the said provision does not require the petitioner to deposit the amount of penalty which has been awarded at 10 times and therefore, the deposit to appellate Court should be considered proper and certificate cannot be insisted upon. Smt. Chandekar on the other hand contends that the section is mandatory and appeal could not have been entertained. She further argues that the amount of penalty also needs to be deposited. She pointed out that in the present fact, the amount as awarded has not been deposited in lump-sum, but deposited in installments. By the impugned order, the District Judge-II has given time to the petitioner to produce certificate under Section 17 (1)(a) of Payment of Wages Act, within 15 days. It is apparent that as per the provisions of Section 17, depositing of amount to protect the interest of workmen is mandatory and filing of certificate is only an evidence of such deposit. In peculiar circumstances, I am inclined to accept deposit made before the appellant authority as in compliance with the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) 3 of the Payment of Wages Act. However, it has been brought to my notice that the amount of penalty awarded to one of the employee has not been deposited by the petitioners. The petitioners are expressing difficulty in depositing that amount. However, the provisions of statute are very clear and the difficulties expressed by the petitioner cannot be looked into and the petitioners have to deposit that amount. Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioners to deposit the amount of penalty with the appellate forum itself within a period of two months from today. This appellate Forum has been directed to accept the deposit at the request of learned counsel for the employees because, according to the counsel, if the penalty is deposited before the authority, the amount will be split and the employees will be required to move for withdrawal before the appellate form and also the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Hence for the convenience of the respondents only, the entire amount is allowed to be deposited before the one forum i.e. Appellate Forum. If the amount is accordingly deposited, the same shall be taken as complete compliance with the requirement of statute and in that case the appellate authority shall not insist upon the production of certificate. 4 The impugned order is modified only to that extent. Rule accordingly. The respondents are at liberty apply for withdrawal of the amount, if the amount is deposited and their application shall be decided on its own merits by appellate authority uninfluenced by the order of this Court. As already mentioned above, the order has been passed in peculiar circumstances and in the interest of justice and the same shall not be used as precedent. JUDGE Rvjalit