1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2008 (Swastik Dal Mill through Omprakash M. Agrawal vs. Sahebrao Sarjerao Kakade ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 11, 2008. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tambde, learned counsel for the respondent. The only contention before this Court is Labour Court at Akola has found compensation of amount of Rs.26,485.35 to present respondent to be just and proper but then the amount actually withdrawn by the respondent is more than Rs.26,485.35. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel states that the fact that the respondent has withdrawn further amount by furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has not been taken into account by the learned Labour Court while passing the impugned award. He states that the petitioner is in fact entitled to receive back or recover that amount from the 2 respondent. He also points out that the impugned award dated 28.1.2008 is not challenged by present the respondent. Shri Tambde, learned counsel states that in the judgment in the case of Balasaheb Rodoba Nagpure vs. Ashok Card Centre & Anr., reported at 2008(3) CLR 354, this Court has in somewhat similar circumstances found that compensation to be awarded ought to have been Rs. One lakh. He further states that no documents or records were produced before the Labour Court to show the actual payment made by the petitioner to the respondent and thus amount of compensation worked out by the Labour Court is unsatisfactory. In view of the facts mentioned above and arguments before me, it is apparent that these arguments of the respondent are not open for consideration in present writ petition. The learned Labour Court has expressly found that the compensation of Rs.26,485.35 is just and proper for the present respondent. In the circumstances, if the respondent has withdrawn any amount over and above the said amount, it is apparent that he is not entitled to retain it. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to recover back that amount in accordance with law. 3 With this clarification, the present writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.