Bombay High Court
Zulash Clearing And Shipping ... vs Secretary, The Clearing And ... on 2 September, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
dgm 1 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2560 OF 2007
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 198 OF 2009
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2560 OF 2007
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 370 OF 2014
ig IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2560 OF 2007
Zulash Clearing & Shipping Agency,
Navratan Building, 69, P.D'Mello Road,
Carnac Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. ....Petitioner
Versus
1 Secretary,
The Clearing and Forwarding Unprotected
Dock Labour Board (For Greater Bombay,
Thane and Raigad Districts),
A-1, 1st Floor, Amba Bhavan,
Devji Ratanshi Marg, Masjid Bunder,
Mumbai 400 009.
2 Transport & Dock Workers' Union,
Mumbai, P. D'Mello Bhavan,
P.D'Mello Road, Carnac Bunder,
Mumbai 400 038. ....Respondents
1/23
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2016 23:54:17 :::
dgm 2 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 526 OF 2011
M/s. Zulash Clearing & Shipping Agency,
Navratan Building, 69, P.D'Mello Road,
Carnac Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. .....Petitioner
Versus
1 The Clearing and Forwarding Unprotected
Dock Labour Board (For Greater Bombay,
Thane and Raigad Districts),
A-1, 1st Floor, Amba Bhavan,
Devji Ratanshi Marg, Masjid Bunder,
Mumbai 400 009.
2 Transport & Dock Workers' Union,
Mumbai, P. D'Mello Bhavan,
P.D'Mello Road, Carnac Bunder,
Mumbai 400 038.
3 Bombay Port Cargo Handling Kamgar
Sahakari Society Ltd., having its
Office at : 103/104, Vyappar
Bhawan, P. D'Mello Road,
Carnac Bunder, Mumbai 400 038
4 The Collector,
Recovery Section under Land
Revenue Code, Old Custom House,
Mumbai 400 023 ....Respondents.
Mr. Yusuf Hussain, in person for the Petitioner in both the matters.
Mr. Praful B. Shah i/b Mr. M.B.Kale for Respondent No.1 in both
matters.
2/23
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2016 23:54:17 :::
dgm 3 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11 AUGUST 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 07 SEPTEMBER 2016
JUDGMENT (PER - ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-
Rule, returnable forthwith.
2 The Petitioner's director/representative, being a senior
citizen has obtained a certificate from the Office as per "Rules for
presentation and conduct of proceedings in-person by the parties", to
appear in person before the Court. On request, heard finally by the
consent of the parties. As the facts and the law involved are common
and interlinked, therefore, based upon the written and oral
submission so made by the parties, this common Judgment.
3 The Petitioner, by Writ Petition No. 2560 of 2007 (the
First), is challenging ex-parte Judgment and order, dated 6 July 2007
passed by Respondent No.1 (The Board), directing the Petitioner to
deposit a sum of Rs.75,48,467.25/- as arrears of wages arising out of
agreement dated 1 December 2001 signed by the Petitioner with
Respondent No.2 (The Union) in presence of an Officer of the Board.
dgm 4 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
Another Writ Petition No. 526 of 2011 (The Second) is also filed
challenging Order dated 31 July 2010, passed by the Board,
maintaining the above demand/order, though holding that the Board
has no such appellate power to interfere with the impugned order.
4 The Board is constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi,
Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare) Act, 1969 ("Mathadi Act"). The Clearing and Forwarding
Unprotected and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment
and Welfare) Scheme, 1991 (the Scheme) is also framed for proper
implementation of the Mathadi Act.
5 The Petitioner was registered as an employer with
Respondent No.1 as provided under clause 14 of the Scheme. The
Petitioner used to engage the registered workers for their work. The
service conditions of the workers registered with the Board are
determined by the Board in two ways. Firstly, by recognizing the
agreement signed by the Union, representing the registered workers of
the Board. Secondly, under Clause 32 of the Scheme, the Board has
powers to fix the service conditions of registered workers.
dgm 5 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
6 An earlier Agreement signed by the Union with Petitioner
on 25 October 1996 expired on 1 August 1998. Thereafter, the Union
submitted a fresh charter of demands claiming upward revision of
service benefits on 11 June 1999 to the Employers with a copy thereof
to the Board.
7 After a discussion, finally a settlement agreement (The
Agreement) was signed under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 ("ID Act") on 1 December 2001 between the Union and
other registered employers, including the Petitioner. The agreement
was approved and recognized by the Board, since the terms and
conditions therein were found to be fair, legal and reasonable. As per
the agreement, the rate of piece rate wages was revised from Rs.9.10
per MT to Rs.12.30 per MT. The agreement provided for minimum
guaranteed wages. The agreement was to be effective from 1
November 1998, but the revised wage was effective from 1 November
2001 to 31 December 2003. The arrears of the wages for the period
between 1 November 1998 to 31 October 2001 were to be paid in
lump sum, subject to mutual decision between employees' and the
dgm 6 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
employer, before 31 December 2001. There was no mutual lump
sum amount fixed/settled for the stated arrears. In fact, there was no
final settlement took place before the time fixed. Such agreement
itself has not attained finality, therefore, the basis of impugned orders
and/or the exparte fixation of amount is an issue in both these
Petitions, apart from power of Board under Section 13 of the Mathadi
Act.
The parties were bound by the terms of the agreement.
The Petitioner started paying the enhanced, revised wages for piece
rate with effect from 1 November 2001. There is no issue with regard
to this payment. The real dispute has cropped up over the payment of
arrears of the period from 1 November 1998 to 31 October 2001. The
Union had demanded the payment of arrears at the revised rate. The
Petitioner, however, did not respond to the demand of the Union. The
Union made a grievance through a representation to the Board, the
signing party to the settlement. The Board was aware that there was
no final settlement took place for the arrears.
9 The Board had called upon the Petitioner to explain why
dgm 7 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
the revised rate should not be made applicable for the period between
1 November 1998 to 31 October 2001 and the difference between the
wages paid and wages payable on revised rate, should not be
recovered from the Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner could not
attend the hearing. The dates on which the Petitioner was called upon
to attend the hearing are set out in the impugned order dated 6 July
2007. The Board has passed impugned ex-parte order on 6 July 2007,
against the Petitioner.
10 In the year 2007, the Petitioner thereafter filed an
Application/Appeal for setting aside the impugned order before the
Board. The Petitioner has also filed the writ Petition challenging
impugned order. This Court, by order dated 22 July 2008 issued
Rule and has also granted stay to the execution of the impugned order,
subject to depositing the principal amount in this Court.
11 In the year 2008, the Petitioner filed Notice of Motion No.
342 of 2008 for recalling order dated 22 July 2008 passed by this
Court, contending that order dated 22 July 2008 was not applicable to
them. The Notice of Motion was disposed of and no modification
dgm 8 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
granted. In the year 2009, the Petitioner filed another Notice of
Motion No. 198 of 2009, seeking a clarification regarding order dated
22 July 2008 on the same grounds, which is pending. In the year
2010, the Petitioner filed third Notice of Motion No. 159 of 2010 for a
clarification which was disposed of without any clarification. This
Court, further directed the Board to dispose of the Appeal filed by the
Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
three months from the communication of the order.
ig On 31 July
2010, the Board has disposed of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner as
directed by this Court. The Petitioner has filed the second writ
petition challenging order dated 31 July 2010, passed by the Board.
12 This Court, granted Rule and tagged both the Writ
Petitions together. This Court, further granted Ad-interim order in
terms of prayer clause (b) of second Writ Petition. After hearing all
the parties, this Court directed the Petitioner to deposit the principal
amount within two weeks. The Petitioner, as noted in order dated 11
August 2011, has already deposited the principal amount.
13 During the pendency of the five Writ Petitions, which were
dgm 9 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
clubbed together, the other Petitioners in four Petitions, except
Petitioner, made negotiations with the workers, and settled their
dispute. They deposited the amount with the Board based upon the
consent terms and four Writ Petitions were disposed of accordingly.
The Petitioner has in fact, moved Notice of Motion No.198 of 2009 to
de-tag these Petitions, being distinguishable on facts and
circumstances. The same is pending.
14 In the year 2014, the Petitioner has filed Notice of Motion
No. 370 of 2014, seeking a permission to withdraw the amount
deposited (para 10 of affidavit in support dated 1 December 2014 of
Notice of Motion) by the Petitioner on the same grounds and
contentions, which were raised by the Petitioner in earlier three
Notices of Motions. Respondent's affidavit that no deposit made is
wrong and contrary to the record.
15 Both parties have made reference to -
a) Section 13 (1) of the Mathadi Act, reads as under:
"13(1) The Board or such office as may be
specified by it in this behalf may, by order,
determined any sum due from any employer or
worker under this Act or any scheme made
dgm 10 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
thereunder, and for this purpose may conduct
such inquiry as the Board or such officer may
think to be necessary."
b) The object under Section 4(1) of The Clearing and
Forwarding Unprotected and other Manual
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare)
Scheme, 1991 is as under :
"2 Object and Application - (1) Object -
the Object of the Scheme is to ensure an
adequate supply and full proper utilization of
Unprotected Workers employed in the
employment in docks in connection with
loading unloading (including warai), sorting,
segregating, cutting stitching, filling, packing
marking, sealing, stacking, carrying,
weighting, measuring or such other work
including the work preparatory or incidental
to such operations, but does not includes
employment of Dock Workers with in meaning
of the Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act, 1948 for efficient
performance of work and generally for making
better provisions in the terms and conditions
of employment of such workers and make
provisions for their general welfare and
safety."
c) Section 2(p) and 18 of the ID Act, reads thus:-
"2(p)."settlement" means a settlement arrived
at in the course of conciliation
proceeding and includes a written
dgm 11 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
agreement between the employer and
workmen arrived at otherwise than in
the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed
by the parties thereto in such manner as
may be prescribed and a copy thereof
has been sent to **[an officer
authorised in this behalf by] the
appropriate Government and the
conciliation officer;]"
"18. Persons on whom settlements and awards
are binding.-
"(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement
between the employer and workman otherwise
than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall
be binding on the parties to the agreement.
State Amendment
Maharashtra.-(a) In section 18, in sub-section
(1), insert the following proviso, namely:-
"Provided that, where there is a
recognised union for any undertaking
under any law for the time being in
force, then such agreement (not being an
agreement in respect of dismissal,
discharge, removal, retrenchment,
termination of service, or suspension of
an employee) shall be arrived at between
the employer, and the recognised union
only; and such agreement shall be
binding on all persons referred to in
clause (c) and clause (d) of sub-section
(3) of this section."
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (3),
an arbitration award] which has become
enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the
agreement who referred the dispute to
arbitration.]
dgm 12 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of
conciliation proceedings under this Act or an
arbitration award in a case where a notification
has been issued under sub- section (3A) of section
10A]
State Amendment
Maharashtra.
(b) In sub-section (3), after the word,
figure and letter "section 10A", insert the
words "or an arbitration award in a case
where there is a recognised union for any
undertaking under any law for the time
being in force".
(Vide Maharashtra Act 1 of 1972, Sec.
20, Sch. I, item 4 (w.e.f 8-9-1975).
or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal] which has become
enforceable] shall be binding on--
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the
proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the
Board, arbitrator,] Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal], as the case may be, records
the opinion that they were so summoned without
proper cause;
(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or
clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or
assigns in respect of the establishment to which
the dispute relates;
(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or
clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons
who were employed in the establishment or part
of the establishment, as the case may be, to
which the dispute relates on the date of the
dispute and all persons who subsequently become
employed in that establishment or part."
dgm 13 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
16 The relevant clauses of agreement/settlement
memorandum dated 1 December 2001, as relevant, are reproduced to
understand the grievance of the Petitioner based on the law:-
"Memorandum of Settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
PRESENT:
"Representing Employers: Representing Workers:
1. Shri Dileep Patil - Secretary 1 Shri Manohar Kotwal, Senior
Vice-President.
M/s. Bombay Port Cargo Handling
Kamgar Handling Sahakari Society
Ltd.
2 Shri Yusuf Hussain, 2 Shri Suryakant Bagal, Secretary
M/s. Zulash Clearing & Shipping
Agency
3.............. 3.........
4.............. 4.........
5..............
6..............
7..............
1 Minimum Guaranteed Wage: It is agreed that if
the piece-rate earnings of a worker when he is on duty,
are less than Rs.160/- for that shift, he will be paid
Rs.160/- per shift by way of fall back wage.
2 Rate of Piece-rate: It is agreed that the rate per ton
shall be revised to Rs.12.30 per MT.
5 Period of the Agreement :
This Agreement will be effective from 01.11.1998.
Whereas actual wage revision will be effective from
dgm 14 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
01.11.2001 to 31.12.2003."
6 Payment of arrears:
The arrears arising out of this Agreement for the
period from 1.11.1998 to 30.11.2001 will be paid in
lump-sum to be decided mutually, before 31.12.2001."
17 The operative part of impugned order dated 6 July 2007 of
the Board is as under:-
"From the statements made on behalf of the
company, the contention that the said agreement is time-
barred is held a not acceptable. Further, it is proved that
the company has committed unpardonable default in the
matter of determining and paying the amount in spite of
the workers and their Union making demands time and
again. The documents produced by the workers and the
records of the Union in that connection have been
examined and a sum of Rs.30,62,507.00 is payable to
the workers as on 31/12/2001. As per the decision at
the meeting held on 5/3/2003 by the Union for
determining the above amount, the amount of difference
was Rs.30,62,507.00. Since Messrs. Zulash Clearing &
Shipping Agencies did not pay the said amount, it is held
that the amount became due and payableon 5/3/2003,
and it is ordered that as per the Union resolution, the
said amount of Rs.30,62,507.00, together with penal
compound interest at 21% thereon for 52 months from
5/3/2003 to 30/6/2007. (aggregating to)
Rs.75,48,467.25 (Rupees seventy Five lakhs forty-eight
thousand four hundred sixty seven and paise twenty-five
only) be paid to the Union. The above amount shall be
paid to the Union within 10 days from receipt of this
order, failing which it is ordered that the said amount be
recovered by the Office of the Collector as arrears of land
revenue."
dgm 15 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
18 The extract of Board's Appeal Order dated 31 July 2010
reads as under:-
"There is no provision in Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal
& Other Labor Workers (Service Rules and Welfare) Act,
1969 under Section 13(1) to cancel the order. Therefore,
demand made by M/s. Zulas Clearing & Shipping Agency
regarding cancellation of the order dated 6.7.2007 is
denied."
but still rejected the Appeal on merits, without assigning the reasons
to the ground so raised in the Appeal of 2007 and
letter/communication dated 12 July 2010 sent to the Board, Mumbai,
which reads thus:-
(a) Whether the Board has jurisdiction to decide
dispute pertaining to Memorandum of Settlement u/Sec
2(p) r/w 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between
the employer, worker and transport and dock worker
union.
(b) Whether the Board can overlook the non
compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act u/Sec.
2(p) r/w Sec 18(1) and Rule 58 and the order passed by
Gujarat High Court as cited hereinabove.
(c ) Whether the Board can determine money payable
u/Sec 13 of the Act when no quantum is fixed under the
clause of the MOU dated 1st December 2001 and wherein
Clause 6 only contemplates discussion for fixing the
amount payable.
(d) Whether the ex-parte order dated 6 July 2007
dgm 16 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
correctly records that the Appellants were not present in
the last 3 meetings."
19 The Petitioner's issues/grounds though specifically raised
in the Appeal, as well as, the Applications so referred above, have not
been considered and/or decided by the Board at any point of time.
Even otherwise, it was necessary for the Board to decide the issues, as
admittedly, the impugned order passed by the Board revolved around
the settlement dated 1 December 2001, which was under Sections
2(p), 18 of the ID Act. Admittedly, there was no settled claim of
arrears arising out of this agreement, for the period from 1 November
1998 to 30 November 2001. The Board, as well as, Union were fully
aware of these clauses. There was no reason to insist for the
adjudicated and/or decision by the Board, on such arrears of
unsettled amount as the agreement was under ID Act. The specific
provisions and the procedure so prescribed under the ID Act (Sections
2(p), 17(A) and 18) for all the purposes, ought to have been invoked
even for the execution of the settlement in question.
20 As noted and as averred and not controverted by the other
side that as per Clause 6 of the settlement terms, the arrears claimed
dgm 17 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
from 1 November 1998 to 31 November 2001, though agreed to be
paid in lumpsum before 31 December 2001, never settled and/or
decided. The effect of it is that the revised rate though agreed made
effective from 1 November 2001 to 31 December 2003, but the arrears
claimed though agreement was given effective date from 1 November
1998, could not be finalized mutually. The part of the agreement
itself, therefore, was never acted upon and/or remained to be settled.
This itself means, not applicable for arrears from 1 October 1998 till
30 November 2001. This agreed clause itself therefore, makes
impermissible for any party, including the Board, who were aware of
the clauses so referred above, for want of jurisdiction to decide the
arrears claim based upon the settlement itself.
21 In the present case, as noted, the Petitioner was absent and
impugned order dated 6 July 2007, was passed ex-parte. The same
was maintained by the Board by observing that it has no jurisdiction
on law, but on merit, rejected the claim/review/Appeal without
deciding the specific grounds, including of the jurisdiction and
authority so raised by the Petitioner.
dgm 18 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
22 Both the impugned orders, in view of above position of
law and the record, for want of specific reasons including, not taking
decision on jurisdictional aspects are in breach of provisions of law,
apart from principle of natural justice.
23 The Board, in view of above, ought to have first decided
on merits by giving full opportunity to the Petitioner, before passing
the impugned order of imposing liability to the extent of
Rs.75,48,467.25/-. No reason whatsoever, given about the effect of
settlement under the ID Act and its enforceability under the Mathadi
Act. The submission that the Special Act should prevail and/or the
Mathadi Act should prevail over the provisions, including the schemes
and therefore, the Board has jurisdiction to pass such order, contrary
to the settlement against the Petitioner by imposing even penalty
interest is unacceptable. Both the orders passed by the Authorities,
have not dealt with this aspect of jurisdiction and their power, inspite
of binding effect of settlement under Section 18 of the ID Act. The
provisions are available under the ID Act for its execution.
24 The submission so made by the learned counsel appearing
dgm 19 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
for the Respondents by filing affidavit and by giving justification
referring to the Judgments Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and
General Kamgar Union Vs. Grocery Markets & Shops Labour Board &
Ors. 1 and Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Indian Gum
Industrial Ltd. & Ors2 are of no assistance. Those judgments are
distinguishable on the facts, as well as, on law. There was no such
situation of execution by the Board of settlement by and between the
parties under the ID Act and/or even of similar nature. The effect of
Special Law prevailing over the General Law, as settled, needs no
discussion. In the present case, the admitted position of law and the
agreement between the parties and for want of specific reasons by
both the authorities while passing/imposing liability with penalty
interest under the Mathadi Act, distinguishes the case in hand in every
aspects.
25 We are also of the view and as contended by the Petitioner
by filing the Application for recalling the first order of the year 2007,
and by filing the Appeal, the Board has no jurisdiction to decide the
disputes pertaining to the settlement between the Employer and the
1 2006(9) LJSOFT (URC) 14=2006(9) Mah.L.J. 377
2 2000(10) LJSOFT 116 = 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 818
dgm 20 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
Transport and Dock Workers' Union. The non-compliance of the
provisions of the ID Act and the Gujarat High Court Judgment so
cited, ought to have been dealt with by the Authority. It is submitted
that in the ex-parte order dated 6 July 2007, it is incorrectly recorded
that the Petitioner was absent on last 3 meetings deliberately. An
opportunity ought to have been given by the Board before passing
such unilateral order. The Board, on application to set aside the
exparte order and/or Appeal, ought to have decided the specific issues
first before re-imposing such liability. Both the orders, therefore, so
passed are contrary to the provisions of law and unacceptable.
26 The issue, even if any, of payment of arrears for the period
from 1 November 1998 to 31 October 2001, needs to be adjudicated
in accordance with law, as the lump sum amount was never mutually
agreed at that time. The liability of employer, therefore, be decided by
the Competent Authority or even by the Board, if empowered by
giving full opportunity, followed by the reasons on the issues so raised,
within reasonable time in accordance with law.
27 In the present case, in pursuance to the orders passed by
dgm 21 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
this Court, the Petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lacs only), which is stated to be lying with this
Registry. The submission that the Petitioner failed to deposit the
amount along with other employers, in view of the orders passed by
this Court and the reasons so recorded above, should not be the
reason to retain this amount in the account. An appropriate order
required to be passed on that count also. The Petitioner has taken out
Notice of Motion No. 370 of 2014, for withdrawal of the amount by
furnishing security to that extent. A Motion is also taken out for de-
tagging the other Petitions. The statement is also made that all the
other Petitions have been disposed of, as the parties have already
settled the matters. That settlement, unless the Petitioner agreed, may
not be the reason to reject the submission so made by the Petitioner.
We have noted, as the case is made out and as both the orders are
illegal and passed in breach of provisions of law and the principle of
natural justice, we are inclined to set aside the same. However, the
amount so deposited, is required to be secured, pending the final
decision including by the Board.
28 As the Petitioner has made out the case and we are
dgm 22 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
inclined to interfere with the matters, in our view, to meet the ends of
justice and to consider the due payment of workers, if any, and to
avoid further complications, if the order is passed against the
Petitioner, we are inclined to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the
amount with accrued interest, however, subject to furnishing the bank
guarantee as prayed for in the Notice of Motion. This Bank
guarantee/Security will continue till the final decision of the Board, as
directed and four weeks thereafter, if adverse order is passed against
the Petitioner.
29 In the result, following order:-
ORDER
a) Both impugned orders passed by the Board
(Respondent No.1) dated 6 July 2007 and 31 July
2010, are quashed and set aside.
b) The Board to re-hear the Petitioner, as early as
possible, preferably within 8 weeks from today and
pass reasoned order on all the contentions so raised,
in accordance with law.
c) The Petitioner is at liberty to file additional affidavit
dgm 23 judgment-wp2560.07.sxw
and/or documents, if any, in support of his case,
before the Board within four weeks from the date of
this order.
d) The amount deposited in this Court of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) with
accrued interest be retained till the final decision of
the Board and four weeks further if adverse order is
communicated to the Petitioner. Liberty is granted
to the Petitioner to apply for withdrawal of the
amount if the decision is in favour of the Petitioner.
Liberty is also granted to the parties to apply for
appropriate order, if necessary.
e) Rule made absolute accordingly.
f) In view of the disposal of both the Writ Petitions,
nothing survive in the Notice of Motions and all the
Notice of Motions are accordingly disposed of.
g) There shall be no order as to costs.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
