1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 550 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1755 of 2007 M/s. Arora Combines ...Appellant v/s. Mr. Damaji Ganpatmankar ...Respondents Shri S.S.Pathak a/w. T.R. Yadav for the appellant. Gayatri Singh i/b. Bhavana Mhatre for respondents. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- October 14, 2009. P.C. The present Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 24th February, 2009 whereby the Learned Single Judge permitted Respondent No. 1 in the Notice of Motion to withdraw the statement that was made on 28th April, 2008 stating that he would not press the Petition under Section 17B. We are informed that the Respondent in the present Appeal has already filed an application under Section 17B as per the liberty given to him. 2 2. We may notice that certain amounts have been deposited by the Appellant but the same cannot be disbursed to the Respondent because of the fact that he is unable to furnish any security. The legislative purpose behind Section 17B is to ensure subsistence of a workman during the pendency of an Appeal or legal proceedings where the workman has been ordered to be reinstated. That purpose itself will stand defeated if the Respondent herein is not permitted to pursue the application under Section 17B and on the other hand is unable to withdraw the lumpsum amount deposited by the Appellant because of his inability to furnish security. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned order granting liberty to withdraw the statement. No merits. Dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J