: 1 : 7816-11-wp=.sxw UJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7816 OF 2011 Baliram Soman Nishad .. Petitioner v/s. M/s. Gehlot Fine Fab Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Ms. Pratibha Borade i/b Mr. A.S. Rao for the petitioner Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for respondent nos. 4 to 6. ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 8th DECEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for seeking direction in the form of writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 to recover the award amount from respondent nos. 1 to 3 and to pay the sum to the petitioner etc. The facts leading to the litigation are as under. 2. In 2003, the petitioner got employment with the respondent nos. 1 : 2 : 7816-11-wp=.sxw to 3. In 2007, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in respect of his termination. On 19th March, 2009, the Labour Court, Thane by an award directed the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner and to pay him back wages. The Labour Court also issued Recovery Certificate under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in favour of the petitioner and directed respondent no.6 Tahasildar, Bhiwandi to recover the amount from respondent nos. 1 to 3. On 8th February, 2010, the respondent no.6 issued order attaching property of the respondent nos.1 to 3 for recovery of the amounts. Soon thereafter, the respondent no.1 issued a cheque for effecting the payment of the amount due under the Certificate but in April, 2010, the cheque bounced and the petitioner could not get the amount. This fact was informed to the respondent no.6 but he did not take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount against the respondent nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner thereafter made request to the respondent no.6 again and again but to no avail. Due to such failure on the part of the respondent no.6 to recover the amount, this petition is filed for direction / writ of mandamus. 3. The respondent though served have not filed any reply to the petition. The respondent nos. 4 to 6 were specifically directed on last : 3 : 7816-11-wp=.sxw occasion to file reply but the same has not been filed before the Court. Though the copy of the same is given by the petitioner’s advocate, none for respondent nos. 4 to 6 is present today before the Court. In view of this, I am held that they have no objection in issuance of writ of mandamus in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. There shall be order in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)