1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2383 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4986 OF 2003 Albert A. Swamy ....Applicant Ori.Respondent V/s. Babulal J Patil & Anr. ....Respondents Ori.Petitioners Mr.J.M. Puranik for the Applicant. Mr.J.P. Cama, Senior Counsel with Ms.Harshada Renose i/b M/s.R.M.G. Law & Associates for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable in view of the previous orders passed by the learned single Judges and by a Division Bench. 2. By an order dated 15.9.2003, the learned Judge granted Rule and recorded the Petitioners’ statement that they would provide work to the first Respondent upon his reporting for work on the same basis on which the work was provided to him in the past. On the allegation that this statement was not complied with, the present Applicant i.e. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court in January, 2005. An interim order dated 10.6.2005 was passed therein, inter-alia directing the 2 Petitioners to either allow the Applicant to report on work or to continue to deposit wages in the Industrial Court. This order was not challenged. On 27.10.2004, the Petitioners’ application for extension of time to deposit an amount of Rs.60,000/- as directed by the order dated 15.9.2003 was rejected. The Petitioners challenged this order by filing Appeal No.128 of 2005. The same was allowed. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated 21.7.2005. By consent time to deposit the amount was extended. The Petitioners made a statement regarding providing the Applicant with the work in terms of the statement recorded in the order dated 15.9.2003. 3. The Applicant thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.123 of 2006 alleging that the Petitioners had failed to comply with the orders dated 15.9.2003 read with order dated 21.7.2005 by not permitting him to report on work. Several allegations have been made by the Applicant regarding the manner in which he has been treated. The Contempt Petition was however disposed of by an order dated 5.5.2006.The learned Judge held on merits that there was no contempt and that the order dated 15.9.2003 had been complied with. 4. The present application is taken out under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act again on the allegation that the Applicant has not been provided work. The Applicant’s grievance is that on the one hand he is not provided work and on the other, he is not even drawing allowance under Section 17-B of the said Act. 5. In view of the past proceedings, the application under Section 17-B of the said Act is not maintainable. Firstly, at least up to the date of 3 the filing of the Contempt Petition, it is not possible to hold that the orders had not been complied with. The learned Judge has recorded the finding that they have been complied with. Assuming that the order dated 21.7.2005 has not been complied with thereafter, the Applicant is always at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. The reliefs under section 17-B of the said Act would in any event not be available in view of the fact that the order dated 21.7.2005 is still in force. There cannot be at the same time, an order in terms of the Petitioners agreement to provide work and an order under Section 17-B of the said Act. 6. In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the rival contentions as to whether the Applicant has been provided work as required by the order dated 21.7.2005. The contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open. Needless to add that in the event of the order dated 21.7.2005 being modified, the Applicant is always at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings including a fresh application under Section 17-B of the said Act. 7. The Civil Application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above clarifications.