THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.M.P.Nos.20079, 33392, 4254 of 2009, 4613 and 1411 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No.15295 of 2009 DATE:29.03.2010 Between: Maytas Inrastructure Limited, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Hyderabad .... Petitioner and Joint Commissioner of Labour, the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad, and others .... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.M.P.Nos.20079, 33392, 4254 of 2009, 4613 and 1411 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No.15295 of 2009 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.06.2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad, 1st respondent, and quash th same. 2. While issuing rule nisi, keeping in mind the interest of the Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Migrant Labour Union, Mahabubnagar, 2nd respondent, this Court, by an order, dated 29.07.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.20079 of 2009, directed that the bills of the petitioner shall be paid, by withholding the amounts, that are equivalent to the claim made by 2nd respondent, until further orders. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application in W.P.M.P.No.33392 of 2009 seeking modification of the interim order dated 29.07.2009 stating that an amount of Rs.74,30,735/- was withheld and respondents 3 and 4 are not releasing an amount of Rs.41,89,755/- from out of the running bills. Taking the said fact into consideration, this Court, by an order, dated 29.12.2009, directed the respondents 3 and 4 to release Rs.41,89,755/- withheld from out of the running bills. 4. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Labour Union filed W.V.M.P.No.4254 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 29.07.2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.20079 of 2009. The 2nd respondent also filed W.P.M.P.No.4613 of 2010 seeking a direction to respondents 3 and 4 not to release the amount withheld from out of the running bills, stating that the claim is worked out to more than Rs.4 crores, and if the amount of Rs.41,89,755/- is withheld, the 2nd respondent may not get the entire amount. 5. Respondents 3 and 4 also filed W.V.M.P.No.1411 of 2010 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 29.07.2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.20079 of 2009. 6. Heard both sides. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the amount in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original amount of claim made by the 2nd respondent is only Rs.41,89,755/- and the same was admitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Labour Union. But, according to him, if the penalty is worked out to 10-times of the said amount of Rs.41,89,755/-, the same would be more than Rs.4 crores. Hence, the said amount also shall not be permitted to be withdrawn. 8. I am not in agreement with the said submission. The undisputed amount is only Rs.41,89,755/- and it is not known, as to whether the authority concerned will impose penalty or not? Even if the authority concerned imposes any penalty, at this stage, it cannot be said that how much the penalty would be. The only requirement is to safeguard the interest of the 2nd respondent-Labour Union, and that has already been done. Hence, the order dated 29.12.2009 does not require any modification and the respondents 3 and 4 shall release the said amount of Rs.41,89,755/- from out of the running bills, forthwith. 9. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- Labour Union, in view of pendendy of the writ petition and the interim orders passed by this Court, the authority concerned is not deciding the claim of the 2nd respondent. In my considered view, pendency of the writ petition cannot be a ground for the authority to decide the claim of the 2nd respondent. The authority concerned may proceed with the enquiry, in accordance with law, and decide the same, at the earliest. 10. At this juncture, both the counsel agreed that there is no need to keep the writ petition pending, for the reason that this Court directed the authority concerned to decide the claim of the 2nd respondent. 11. In view of the said submission, the authority concerned is hereby directed to proceed with the enquiry, in accordance with law, and decide the claim of the 2nd respondent, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition and all the M.Ps. are disposed of. No costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th March, 2010 Note: Issue wire at party's cost. (b/o) cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.M.P.Nos.20079, 33392, 4254 of 2009, 4613 and 1411 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No.15295 of 2009 (Disposed of) 29th March, 2010 Note: Issue wire at party's cost. (b/o) cbs