1 6-wp-51-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2011 M/s. Global Health Care Products .. Petitioner. V/s. Mr. Punabhai J. Patel & Another .. Respondents. Mr. Santosh Kyadigupri i/b. Mr. Kiran Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Ms. Bhavna A. Anklesaria, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. 3 By consent of both the parties, matter is taken on board for final hearing at the stage of admission. 4 By this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner/Original First Party Employer challenges the order dated 19th October, 2010 passed by the learned 2 6-wp-51-11.sxw Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, directing Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the Respondent. 5 The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent started activities prejudicial to the interest of discipline of the company and by dubious means started spoiling the harmonious atmosphere in the company and, therefore, they issued suspension order dated 17th July, 2004. Thereafter, they appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct inquiry. In the said enquiry, though Respondent was duly served, he remained absent and, therefore, the enqiry was conducted ex-parte. On the basis of enquiry report, they dismissed the Respondent by their order dated 31st August, 2004. The said order was challenged by the Respondent before the Labour Court at Silvassa. 6 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a compensation to the Respondent. 7 I have gone through the order passed by the Labour Court. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner examined Sanjay Kumar as a witness vide Ex. 46, who admitted in the cross examine that he does not have any knowledge about the charges levelled against 3 6-wp-51-11.sxw Respondent-workmen. It is also admitted fact that one more witness Mr. Hasti Samatha examined by the Petitioner vide Ex.27. His cross examined remained incomplete, as he remained absent on the subsequent date. Considering these facts and as the company is closed, the Labour Court directed Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lump sum to the Respondent-workmen towards compensation. I do not fined any error in the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer dated 19th October, 2010 to interfere under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 8 Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that as per the order passed by this Court, they have already deposited the entire amount in this Court. Respondent is at liberty to withdraw the same amount with accrued interest, if any. (K.K.TATED, J.)