1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2002 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6570 OF 2006 The Secretary, Deccan Education Society and another ... Applicants Versus Shri. Manohar Mahadeo Ranade and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atul G. Damle for the Applicants. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 09, 2009 P.C. By the present application in the pending petition, the Petitioners who are applicants over here have prayed that the operation, implementation and execution of the orders dated 30.1.2009 and 23.6.2009 be stayed till the final decision of the petition and that the tribunal be directed not to enforce the execution of the orders in respect of backwages. The application was taken out on 15.7.2009. We are informed today that the tribunal had already directed the backwages to be deposited before the tribunal and that the cheque has already been deposited with the tribunal some time in the last week. 2 At the hearing of this application on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned counsel submits that even after the order of 5.3.2007, the earlier order dated 23.2.2007 granting ad interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause (b) till further orders subsists. In our opinion, that would be misconstruing the order. That order was merely by way of an ad interim arrangement till the petition comes up for admission. On 5.3.2007 Rule was issued. The only stay that was granted was in respect of contempt proceedings. The prayer to stay reinstatement was rejected and it was specifically set out that the Petitioners will have to reinstate the respondents. The Petitioner did reinstate the respondents but thereafter acted in terms of Para 3 of the order dated 5.3.2007. The learned counsel submits that this court should direct the tribunal not to pay backwages. In our opinion, the issue before us is limited to construction of our order dated 23.2.2007 and 5.3.2007. There was no order in the matter of backwages. Hence, the order passed by the tribunal cannot be said to be in contravention either of the order dated 23.2.2007 and 5.3.2007. In the light of that, application rejected. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)