wp1162.10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1162 OF 2010 Shri Ram Jawahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Udyog, Phaltan, Dist. Satara ....Petitioner. Vs. Mr. Chagan Ramchandra Pendkule & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Nilesh Malunjkar for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Pakale i/by Mr. Shri Kiran Kumar Phakade for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 15th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 Rule, returnable forthwith. 2 Heard finally. 3 Respondent No.1 is allegedly working with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. By the impugned order, pending the complaint, the Industrial Court, Satara, practically allowed the application and directed the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to deposit the wages from the 01/03/2009 till date and further to pay wages thereafter. The responsibility to pay wages of Respondent­ Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, is stated to be joint and several. 4 There is a dispute about the liability about the wages to be paid by the Petitioner and/or Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Whatever internal dispute, wp1162.10.sxw 2 unless adjudicated finally, at this stage, no such directions can be given without considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the settlement aspect also. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 even are disputing that the Petitioner­ complainant's case is that he is working with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 till this date. In view of this, I am of the view that it is desirable that controversy be resolved as early as possible. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order whereby, the effect is to grant the complaint itself, with further observations that the Industrial Court, should dispose of the complaint, as early as, possible within four months. Both the parties to co­operate, accordingly. The impugned order dated 28th December, 2009, therefore, quashed and set aside with above observations. 5 The Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)