=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION (L) NO.2135 OF 2008 (L) NO.2135 OF 2008 (L) NO.2135 OF 2008 Hindustan Mills Process House Siddhivinayak Kamgar Sangharsha Sanghatana, Mumbai 400 028 ...Petitioners v/s Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and others ...Respondents Mr Anand Grover with Mr Prakash Mahadik for Petitioners. Mr F. D’Vitre, Sr. Counsel with Mr Sham Mehta i/b M/s Federal and Rashmikant for Respondent No.1. Mr J.P. Cama, Sr. Counsel i/b M/s P.K. Shroff and Co. for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH APRIL 2009 15TH APRIL 2009 15TH APRIL 2009 =2= P.C. :- 1. It is clear from the record that the order that is in force today is the order of the Division Bench passed in appeal No.364 of 2005 dated 11th June 2007. It is common ground that the amount that will be payable by the employer to the workers who are involved in this petition, according to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st February 2005, would be more than the amount that will be payable according to the order of the Division Bench passed in appeal No.364 of 2005 and other companion appeals dated 11th June 2007 and the respondents have secured the payment that would have to be made as per the order of the learned Single Judge plus extra 10 % . The order of the Division Bench is challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted special leave to appeal and therefore, an undertaking has also admittedly been given that payment would be made as per the order of the Supreme Court in case the Supreme Court enhances the amount that becomes payable. In our opinion, therefore, in these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order of the Government granting No Objection Certificate which enables the respondents to take up construction. In our opinion, therefore, petition cannot be entertained. =3= 2. However, as the appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, in our opinion, in case the Supreme Court on an application made by the petitioners makes any order for any enhanced security or otherwise, it will be appropriate to direct, while disposing of the petition, the respondents that they will not start construction on the land for a period of six weeks from today. We are making this order in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court and also in view of the fact that admittedly till today, the I.O.D. (Intimation of Disapproval) has not yet been received and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the interest of the respondents if such a direction is given. Therefore, though the petition is disposed off, the respondents are directed not to take up any construction pursuant to the No Objection Certificate issued, which is subject matter of this petition, for a period of six weeks from today. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be at liberty to apply to the Supreme Court in the pending appeal for appropriate orders. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that though all the respondents are not before the Supreme Court, he will serve advance copy of the application to be made to the Supreme Court on all the respondents in this petition. Statement is accepted. Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. =4= . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( R.S. MOHITE J.)