1 wp1565.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1565/2008
1. Principal,
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Selu (Kate), Tahsil & District
Wardha.
2. Director,
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Samiti, 78, Mayur Colony,
Kothrud, Pune.
3. Collector, Wardha and Chairman
of the Committee of Navodaya Vidyalaya
Selu (Kate), Tahsil and District Wardha. ..Petitioners.
..Versus..
Smt. Suman Wd/o Raghunath Rajurkar,
aged about 36 Yrs., Occu. Cook at
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Selu (Kate),
Tahsil and District Wardha. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- -
Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri M.P. Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 27.03.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. On 19th October, 2015 no one appeared for the petitioners. The learned Advocate for the respondent was heard and judgment was delivered in open Court dismissing the petition. However, before the judgment could be signed, the learned ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:41 ::: 2 wp1565.08 Advocate for the petitioners mentioned the matter and requested for hearing. Therefore, the judgment was not signed and the petition was kept for hearing again.
2. Heard Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the petitioners / employer and Shri M.P. Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent / employee.
Though several issues are raised by the petitioners, including the issue that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent / employee, considering the facts of the case and as the petitioners / employer have deposited an amount of Rs.1,35,420/- as per the interim order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.375/2008 on 25th November, 2008 and the respondent / employee is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, on instructions, states that if the respondent / employee is satisfied with the amount deposited, the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Though the Advocate for the respondent / employee has submitted that the amount deposited by the petitioners is less than the amount receivable by the respondent / employee and liberty is sought to make claim for the additional amount, in my view, liberty cannot be granted in the present case as the respondent / employee has not raised dispute in the matter for more than 8 years. The petitioners deposited the amount in February, 2009 and till date the respondent has not filed any affidavit in this petition stating that the amount deposited by the petitioners is not as per the impugned order passed by the ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:41 ::: 3 wp1565.08 Industrial Court.
As the petitioners have given up the challenge, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
The respondent / employee is permitted to withdraw the balance amount alongwith interest, if any.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:41 :::