Principal, Jawahar Navodaya ... vs Smt. Suman Raghunath Rajurkar
2017 Latest Caselaw 1081 Bom

                                                                                               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

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

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.