1 WP 5006.2009.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5006 OF 2009 The Secretary to Government ... Petitioners Versus Shri Sanjay Venkatrao Shinde ... Respondent. Mr.S.K.Chinchilikar, AGP for the Petitioners. Mrs. Anjali Helekar, for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED : 30th July, 2009. P.C.: 1 Heard learned AGP for the petitioners-original opponent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned counsel for the respondent-original applicant. 2 Being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, dated 25.11.2008 this petition has been preferred. By the said order the Labour Court allowed the application of the Respondent under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act and directed the petitioners to pay the respondent Rs. 6,51,360/- within three months from the date of order along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of application till the realization of the entire amount towards difference in wages. 2 WP 5006.2009.sxw 3 The Respondent had filed a complaint in the Industrial Court at Pune against denial of permanency benefits. The said complaint was partly allowed by order dated 1.2.2006. In the said order it was directed to make the complainant permanent in the employment on full time basis with all consequential benefits to which they are entitled under law w.e.f. 16.10.1995, as Recommended by the respondent in its letter dated 10.2.1999. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006. The learned AGP submitted that this court by order dated 06.07.2007 stayed the order dated 1.2.2006, hence impugned order could not have been passed by the Labour Court, in view of the order dated 06.07.2007 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006. 4 I have perused the order dated 06.07.2007 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006. It is observed that this court granted stay on the condition that the respondent workman shall be paid salary from the date of the order which is payable to other full time persons working as Laboratory Assistant. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing LPA No. 25583 of 2007. In the LPA no stay was granted to the order dated 06.07.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006. Thereafter, the LPA came to be dismissed on 02.04.2008. 5 The learned AGP submitted that conditional order of this court dated 06.07.2007 was complied with and hence, the stay would continue. 3 WP 5006.2009.sxw He submitted that the Labour Court was in error in observing that the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006 was not complied with and granting relief. In support of his contention that the order was complied with, he placed reliance on office order dated 21.11.2008 to show that the respondent was paid full salary as per the order dated 06.07.2007. I have perused the office order dated 21.11.2008. On perusal of office order, it cannot be said that the respondent was paid amount on 06.07.2007 or soon thereafter. It is pertinent to note that in the proceedings before the Labour Court, the witness of the petitioner stated that, they had not implemented the order till that date i.e. 25.11.2008. Moreover, the learned counsel who represented the petitioner before the Labour Court stated that the petitioners had not implemented the order of the High Court in Writ Petition no. 8373 of 2006. Thus, it is seen that till the order was passed by the Labour Court, the order of this Court dated 06.07.2007 was not complied with. 6 By order dated 06.07.2007, this court passed an interim order in Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006, whereby the order of the Industrial Court was conditionally stayed. The condition precedent in the said order has not been complied with. In such case, the stay which was granted stands automatically vacated. The Labour Court has also observed that interim stay was granted in Writ Petition No. 8373 of 2006 on certain conditions, those conditions have not been followed by the opponents and hence the 4 WP 5006.2009.sxw application preferred by the respondent under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for implementation of the order dated 01.02.2006 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 199 of 2003 is tenable. 7 Looking to the fact that the order dated 06.07.2007 was conditional order and admittedly the said condition was not complied with by the petitioners, no error can be found in the order of the Labour Court in entertaining the application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]