Manohar Vaijenath Gawali And ... vs The Metcon India Engineers And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11999 Bom

                                        1                            907-ca1795-21.odt




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1795/2021
                                          IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO.9321/2021

        MANOHAR VAIJENATH GAWALI AND ANOTHER
                            VERSUS
THE METCON INDIA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS THROUGH ITS
     MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND OTHERS
                                ...
       Advocate for Applicants : Suryawanshi Surendra V.
              Adv S.S Rathi for Petitioner In WP
              Adv Dankh Sachin V. for R. No 1 and 3
             Adv. D.B.Pokale h/f S.S.Choudhari for R.4.
                                   ...
                       CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL,J.

DATE : 27/08/2021

PER COURT :

Heard.

2] Issue notice to the respondents returnable within 5 weeks. The learned Advocate Mr.Dankh waives service for respondent nos.1 and 3 and Mr.Pokale,Adv. waives service for respondent no.4.

3] The respondent nos.1 and 3 from the petition have filed this application styling it to be an application in disposed of Writ Petition No.11096/2015 which was allowed and disposed of by the order dated 14/12/2018 thereby remanding the matter to the labour Court for decision afresh. However, simultaneously this Court had permitted them (respondent nos.1 and 3) to withdraw the amounts deposited in this Court.

                                      2                               907-ca1795-21.odt




4]      It appears that since after remand, again the petitioners did not
contest the proceedings before the labour Court which                   has been

decided ex parte against them and that judgment and order is under challenge in Writ Petition No.9321/2020. By way of this Application now the respondent nos.1 and 3 from the Writ Petition are soliciting a similar order allowing them to withdraw the amount.

5] Considering the fact that the respondent nos.1 and 3 have been made to contest the Writ Petition once again due to the default of the petitioners to contest the proceeding, it would be just and proper to allow the remainder of the money which stands deposited in the labour Court to be withdrawn.

6] The Application is allowed. The respondent nos. 1 and 3 are allowed to withdraw remaining 50% amount of their share each with interest accrued, subject to the condition that they furnish usual security for 50% of the amount each one of them would be receiving and furnish a bank guarantee for the balance 50% of share of each. The execution of the order impugned in the Writ Petition shall stand stayed till decision of the Writ Petition.

(MANGESH S. PATIL,J.)

umg/