1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.223 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2256 OF 2008 M/s.Sterling Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. & anr. ..Appellants V/s. Kiran Manohar Yeralkar & ors ..Respondents Mr.R.V.Pai a/w.Mr.S.M.Kamble, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 21st January, 2009, in Writ Petition No.2256 of 2008. By the said Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 20th September, 2004, passed by the Labour Court in 2 Application (IDA) No.550 of 1995 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Order of the Labour Court was challenged in the Writ Petition after a period of four years. The Learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition by holding that whether there was any established practise or not is essentially a question of fact and that the appellants have not led any further evidence. In our view, the Order of the Learned Single Judge requires no interference in the present appeal firstly because the Order of the Labour Court was challenged before the Learned Single Judge after about four years by way of Writ Petition. Secondly, it has been found by the Learned Single Judge that the point raised before the Learned Single Judge was already concluded by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.927 of 1993. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that there are changed circumstances i.e.the closure of the Company. So far as this aspect is concerned, in our view, it is for the appellants to lead appropriate evidence before the Labour Court about the closure of the Company. This aspect is not the subject matter of the present proceedings and, 3 therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on the same. It is for the appellants to lead appropriate evidence in this behalf in the pending proceedings before the Labour Court pointing out that there are changed circumstances and it is for the concerned Court to consider the same in accordance with law. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants undertake to pay the amount which is required to be paid as per the Order of the Learned Single Judge but requested that some time may be given for such payment. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, we accept the oral Undertaking of the appellants that the appellants will pay the amount in question to the workmen. The amount to be paid by 1st January, 2010. The appellants shall abide by the oral undertaking regarding payment of the amount as aforesaid. The learned counsel for the appellant states that he is making this statement, after taking instructions from the Managing Director of the Company, who according to him is present in the Court. In case the amount is paid, non- 4 bailable warrant may not be executed till that date. However, if the amount is not paid, the non-bailable warrant may be executed after 1st January, 2010. The appellants may calculate the amount payable to the workmen and deposit the same in Labour Court and thereafter, the respondents are allowed to withdraw the same immediately. 4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( R.C.CHAVAN, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) 5