1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3156 OF 2007 M/s.Rathi Re-Rolling Mills ... Petitioners v/s Ashok Shravan Jadhav & ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.D. Soni i/b. Ram & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Bhavesh Parmar for the Respondents. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 19TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 10th January, 2007, passed in Misc. (IDA) Review Application No.18 of 2006 and order dated 17th April, 2006, passed in Misc. Application (IDA) Nos.7 of 2000 and 1 of 2002 by the Labour Court, Nasik. 2. The respondents-workmen had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 2 being Application (IDA) No.348 of 1997, claiming wages and allowances for the period from October, 1992 till June, 1997. That application is decided ex-parte and the Labour Court held that the workmen were entitled to the amounts that they have claimed. This order was passed on 29.7.2000. 3. A recovery certificate was issued after which the petitioners had filed Misc. Application (IDA) Nos.7 of 2000 and 1 of 2002. Both these applications were decided together by the Labour Court on 23.8.2005. The Labour Court allowed the applications and set aside the ex-parte orders dated 12.6.2000 and 29.7.2000 on condition that the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- in the Labour Court or furnish a security bond accompanied by a solvancy certificate issued by the competent authority to the extent of Rs.13,00,000/- and costs of Rs.8,600/-. It appears that this amount has not been deposited by the petitioners. An application for review was filed by the petitioners being Misc. Application (IDA) No.18 of 2006. This application was dismissed on 10.1.2007 as the petitioners have not made out any ground for reviewing the earlier order. Being aggrieved by that decision, the petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition. Statements were recorded time and again by this Court in June, 2007 to the effect that the petitioners were ready and willing to deposit the entire amount awarded by 3 the Labour Court in their application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, it appears that the amount was deposited in the Labour Court in May, 2010. The petitioners deposited Rs.13,00,000/- along with a certain amount as interest. They have deposited total amount of Rs.15,13,500/-. 4. The petitioners contend that since they have deposited the entire amount, the Labour Court should decide the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Parmar, the learned Advocate for the respondents-workmen, submits that the workmen have been denied their salary right from the year 2000, when the orders were passed by the Labour Court. He submits that, despite the indulgence shown by the Labour Court to the petitioners allowing them to deposit an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as against Rs.20,00,000/-, which was awarded, the petitioners failed to take advantage of this indulgence. He points out that the order passed by the Labour Court is dated 23.8.2005. The amount has been deposited only in May, 2010 and the workmen have been denied wages for more than 10 years. He, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition should be dismissed. 5. Mr. Soni, the learned Advocate appearing for the 4 petitioners, states that, in fact the Concern has been closed down since 1994 and, therefore, the respondents-workmen are not entitled to the amounts awarded by the Labour Court. 6. In my view, whether there is a closure or not is a material fact which would have to be established in accordance with law before the Labour Court by the petitioners. That issue cannot be decided here as there is no evidence to that effect on record. 7. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 29.7.2000 passed in Misc. Application (IDA) No.348 of 1997, however, on depositing an additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in this Court within a period of four weeks from today. 8. It is made clear that if this amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is not deposited in this Court within four weeks, as stipulated, no extension shall be granted to the petitioners. 9. If the amount is not deposited with the time stipulated, the earlier order dated 29.7.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Nasik, in Misc. Application (IDA) No.348 of 1997 shall come into effect immediately. 5 10. In case the amount is deposited within the stipulated time, the Labour Court, Nasik, shall decide the application in accordance with law after permitting the parties to lead the evidence. 11. The Labour Court, Nasik, shall dispose of the application within a period of six months from today. 12. The Writ Petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions. 13. The Civil Application No.833 of 2010 pending in this Writ Petition also stands disposed of in view of disposal of the Writ Petition. .....