-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1659 OF 2008 Shri Dilip Balkrishna Shikhare : Petitioner V/s. Central Iron Works through its Partners:- Mukund Vishnupant Utkur & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Amit Shetye i/b. Mr.A.B.Borkar for the petitioner. Mr.Kiran Phakade i/b. Mr.S.S.Pakale for the respondents. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 28, 2009. P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Phakade waives service for the respondents. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 2.8.2007 and 23.1.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The petitioner and another person were permitted by the Labour Court to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- on furnishing solvent security of near relative with a direction that both should give an undertaking that in case they succeed, they will return the amount of -: 2 :- Rs.1,00,000/- paid to them as per the order of the Court. The petitioner applied for modification of the order on the ground that he does not have property and his close relatives are not ready to furnish their solvency certificate. The Labour Court rejected the application, inter alia, on the ground that it has no power to review an order under the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, this petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I see no reason why the petitioner ought not to be allowed to furnish solvent security of any person other than close relatives. What is important is that the petitioner should furnish solvent security before withdrawing the amount as permitted by this Court. It is difficult to see any reason why there should have been insistence that the petitioner should furnish solvent security of a close relative only. The learned counsel for the respondents is also not in a position to point out any reason or any provision of law which requires solvent security to be of a specific person. In these circumstances, I am of view that there is a miscarriage of justice and the order deserves to be modified. 4. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be -: 3 :- permitted to submit solvent security of any suitable person to the satisfaction of the Labour Court. Order accordingly. 5. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. S.A. BOBDE, J.