THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21330 of 2010 O R D E R: I have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner at great length. The order which is sought to be challenged in this Writ Petition is an interim order passed by the 1st respondent – Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, directing the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 56,666/- and in fact, the said money was ordered to be deducted from the bills payable by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner, so that the same can be disbursed in favour of the applicants who have been engaged in the work of mechanical cleaning of Vizianagaram Railway Station by the writ petitioner. Though several contentions have been canvassed in the Writ Petition and also attempted at the Bar, when the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been drawn to the fact that the present order is only an interim order and the proceedings, which are pending before the 1st respondent have not yet been culminated in final adjudication and every adjudicating officer has the power to pass such interim orders as are considered just and appropriate, the learned counsel would fairly submit that the 1st respondent should have tried to protect the interests of the petitioner also at the same time. What the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would further add is that if the claimants/workmen were to withdraw this money, it would become difficult for the writ petitioner to recover the same, in the event the writ petitioner succeeds finally before the 1st respondent. I can see some force behind this submission. The 1st respondent, therefore, should have struck a balance between the competing interests of the writ petitioner on the one hand and the workmen engaged by him on the other. Therefore, while ordering for deposit of Rs. 56,666/-, he ought to have directed the disbursement thereof in favour of the claimants/workmen only on furnishing some security by them to his satisfaction. That would ensure that in case the claim petition preferred by them were to be ultimately dismissed, the petitioner will be able to recover the money deposited by it during the pendency of the said proceedings. Therefore, I propose to modify the impugned order, by adding the following condition, namely, that the amount of Rs.56,666/- be disbursed in favour of the claimants/workmen, subject to their producing security to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent and that the said disbursement will abide by the result in the main proceedings. With this modification, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 27th August 2010 ksld