1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CIVIL APPLN. NO.: 11822 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 4900 0F 2005 *** Suresh Madhukarrao Gaikwad Versus The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Aurangabad *** 1. Heard leqrned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Present applicant is petitioner in Writ Petition No.4900 of 2005. This petition, filed by the applicant, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Labour Cour, Aurangabad dated 12th December, 2004 in Application (IDA) No.5 of 2001. The learned Labour Court allowed the application under section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 partly. The Respondent, in that application i.e. M.S.R.T.Corporation, Aurangabad was directed to pay monetary benefits i.e. for overtime wages of Rs.1,43,077/- to the Applicant Suresh Madhukarrao Gaikwad within a period of one month. This order is challenged in this writ petition. This writ petition was listed before this Court for admission. This Court, after hearing the counsel for the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Petitioiner, issued Rule and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D). On that day Mr. Patnoorkar appearing for the respondent/ employee was directed to file affidavit stating how the overtime allowance is calculated and thereafter the question for confirmation of the interim relief was to be considered. This was the order passed by learned Single Judge on 28th July, 2005. It appears that, thereafter, application for moved seeking early hearing of the writ petition. This Court by the order passed on 7th December, 2007 rejected the application with liberty to renew the request after six months. Thereafter, again, application was moved for early hearing. This Court, after hearing the parties, passed order on 13th February, 2009, rejecting the application for early hearing and fixing specific date. There is one more order passed by this Court on 1st August, 2008 rejecting the application for early hearing. Thereafter, it appears that Civil Application No.10329 of 2009 was filed on behalf of present employee. This application was heard and disposed of by this Court. In view of the order passed, the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,43,077/- in this 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Court by demand draft, on 15th October, 2009. 4. Thereafter, present civil application seeking withdrawal of the entire amount is filed by the applicant/ employee. This application has been opposed by the original writ petitioner. Reply filed by the original petitioner is on record, sworn in by one Mr. Milind S/o Shyam Band, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Aurangabad. In para 2 of this reply, it has been stated that ground raised by the applicant/ employee, seeking withdrawal of the amount Rs.1,43,077/- on account if his illness is without any support and substance. There is no document filed on record. Grievance is raised that in lower Court also allegation of the employee that he was suffering from heart stroke was denied by the employer, present writ petitioner. According to the Corporation, the employee was dismissed for misconduct somewhere in the year 2003. Further it has been stated that the present applicant/ employee is not entitled for payment of overtiem wages, order passed by the learned judge, labour Court under section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal. 5. On the last occasion, counsel appearing for the employee/ applicant was directed to 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. furnish copy of the certificate which was produced on record in this Court along with some other civil application for fixing the matter for early hearing. This copy of the certificate is accordingly received by the counsel appearing for the original writ petitioner. Here, grievance is that, this certificate is not readable. Consequently, according to learned counsel, this certificate is not genuine. She, therefore, objects for permitting the employee/ applicant to withdrawn the amount from this Court. In the alternate, she submits that if writ petition is heard early, petitioner Corporation has no objection. 6. It is matter of record that writ petitions, which were admitted in 2002, are still pending before this Court. Attempt on the part of the parties in this writ petition, seeking earlier hearing were heard and rejected by this Court. This writ petition is of 2005. There is no point in submission of the counsel for the Corporation/ employer that writ petition may be heard earlier. There is no special circumstance to give precedence over number of writ petitions who are in queue from 2002. 7. The counsel for the applicant/ employee 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. submits that even if ground of illness is not considered, still the applicant is entitled for withdrawal of the amount. He shows readiness to furnish security. Copy of the certificate is marked by letter "X" for identification purpose and taken on record. Copy is already received by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 8. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge under section 33 (C) (2) wherein petitioner Corporation is directed to make payment of Rs.1,43,077/-. In other words, it is in the nature of money decree which is challenged in this Court. Ad-interim relief is also granted by this Court, as referred to in foregoing paragraph. Attempt on the part of the parties seeking early hearing is resulted in rejection. In my view, putting some conditions on the applicant, the applicant can be permitted to withdraw part of the amount. 9. Civil application accordingly is partly allowed. Applicant is permitted to withdraw Rs.71,000/- (Rupees seventy-one thousand only) out of Rs.1,43,077/- which is deposited in this Court, on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. (Judicial) of this Court. 10. Registrar (Judicial) shall invest the remaining amount with the State Bank of Hyderabad, High Court Branch, Aurangabad initially for the period of three years. In the absence of further order from this Court, said investment shall stand renewed for further three years, every time. 11. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:29/01/2010. ans/11822