1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5794 OF 1997 Banwarilal Laxminarayan Sharma, Adult, occupation Business, residing at Manmad, Taluka Nandgaon, Dist.Nasik. .... Petitioner vs 1 Smt.Sagunabai Rambhau Gavali, Adult, Occ. Household, residing at c/o. Shri Mohan Malvatkar, Gandhichowk, Gavaliwada, Manmad,’ Tal. Nandgaon, Dist. Nashik 2 General Manager, Central Railway, having its office at V. T. now C.S.T., Mumbai 400 001, 3 Ramesh Rambhau Gavali, (W. P. stands dismissed against R. No.3 vide Addl.Regr’s Order dated 31/1/2000. .... Respondents Mr. Babasaheb Deshmukh i/b. Mr. N. B. Shah for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 15th March, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT.: 1 The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 29.09.1997 issued by the Labour Court, Nashik in Misc. Recovery Proceedings No.58/1997 which is admittedly based upon the judgment dated 21.10.1994 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In para 6 thereof, it is observed as under: 2 “6 In the result, the appeal is allowed. We direct that the appellant shall be entitled to the sum of Rs. 27,000/- to be paid by respondent No.2- B. L. Sharma. The amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application made by the applicant till realisation.” 2 The submission is that by the Registrar’s order dated 8.12.1993, the petitioner’s name was deleted and ultimately, as per Court’s order dated 24.06.1994 the name of respondents 1 and 2 were deleted in L. P. A. No.49/1992 in First Appeal No.24/1983 and, therefore, the order so passed was without hearing and without giving any opportunity to respondents 1 & 2 as none appeared for them when the oder dated 21.10.1994 was passed. Therefore, the order, as well as, the demand so raised is bad in law and non-est. The Appeal Was continued only against respondent no.3. In the present writ petition, the challenge is also to the order passed by the Division Bench directing the petitioner (respondent no.2) to pay the amount with interest, though, he was deleted from the matter. 3 Admittedly, after receipt of the demand notice in question, the petitioner had knowledge about the Division Bench order; there is no challenge made and/or any objection raised by moving appropriate application or petition before the same Division Bench and/or there is no further challenge raised in any other Court till this date. Therefore, the order so passed has attained finality for all the purposes. 3 4 The Order, even if it is passed in such fashion, unless quashed and set aside by appropriate Petition and/or due appropriate Forum, the same is binding. Even otherwise, in the present writ petition, though challenge is raised to the demand notice of 29.09.1997, yet the basic submission is ultimately revolve around the order passed by the Division Bench on 21.10.1994 as if this is an Appellate Court/Forum. This Court has no jurisdiction and/or is not empowered to deal with the reasoned order passed by the Division Bench though it is exparte. It is difficult to accept the case of the petitioner that such order is unenforceable, void or non-est, for want of challenge to the same at appropriate time or stage. The Order passed by the Division Bench is binding upon the Single Bench. In the present facts, the notice of recovery so initiated based upon the order of recovery, in my view, cannot be stated to be without jurisdiction and non- binding law. No case is made out to interfere with the demand notice/order. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the amount so directed has been deposited and the concerned respondent has already withdrawn the same. 6 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)