Allowed

Mohmad Iqbal and Ors. v. Patel Engineering Works and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2011CAW/638/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Application No. 638 of 2011, the High Court at Bombay allowed applicants to withdraw money deposited by a respondent company. The withdrawal is conditional upon furnishing security other than a bank guarantee, pending the outcome of a pending writ petition regarding industrial dispute compensation and legal dues.

What did the court decide?

Applicants are allowed to withdraw Rs. 1 lakh each and proportionate amount from deposited sums by furnishing security other than bank guarantee.

Mohmad Iqbal and Ors. Vs Patel Engineering Works and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2011)

41 caw 638.11.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 638 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5833 OF 2010

¶6

Mohmad Iqbal and others ..Applicants. Vs. M/s Patel Engineering Works & ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. N.M.Ganguli for Mr. S.S.Pathak for applicants. Mr. Piyush Shah for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶8

Ms. Smita Raghunath Lad i/b M/s Apex Law Partners for respondent no.4.

¶9

CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 21/06/2011.

¶10

PC :

¶11

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2 The Applicants-original Respondents/claimants preferred

¶13

this application for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each and proportionate amount out of Rs.1,43,761/- deposited by the respondents with the office of the Registry of this court pursuant to the order passed by this court (Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) dated 3^rd December, 2010 in Civil Application No. 2911 of 2010.

¶14

41 caw 638.11.doc

¶15

¶16

3 A few facts of the matter are as under:

¶17

The Respondent Company preferred Writ Petition No.5833 of 2010 against the judgment dated 18^th May, 2010 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 294 of 2008 directing the Respondent – Company to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to each ApplicantComplainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of that order and also to deposit remaining amount of their legal dues i.e. Rs.1,43,761/-. The Writ Petition is admitted and thereafter Respondent-Company preferred Civil Application for stay of judgment dated 18^th May, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.294 of 2008. After hearing both the sides, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai directed the Respondent-Company to deposit the entire amount as per the order dated 18^th May, 2010. Pursuant to the order RespondentCompany has deposited the entire amount in this court.

¶18

4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Applicants submits that they are entitled to withdraw the amount, as the same was awarded by the Industrial Court to them. The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are entitled to receive the said amount, that they were unemployed and they were badly in need of the amount. He submits that all

¶19

41 caw 638.11.doc

¶20

¶21

the Applicants require the amount for day to day expenses, it is very difficult for them to survive for want of financial assistance. He submits that if the present civil application is not allowed they will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶22

5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that once the amount is allowed to be withdrawn to the applicants, it is difficult for them to recover, if they succeed in the present petition. In support of his contentions he relied on unreported order of this court dated 23^rd October, 1997 in Writ Petition 1620 of 1997.

¶23

6 In the present case, the Industrial Court by impugned order dated 18^th May, 2010 directed respondent no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each Applicant in addition to the amount of their legal dues for non-compliance of the earlier order passed by the Industrial Court on 14^th August, 2008. This shows that the Industrial Court awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to each Applicant by way of compensation in addition to the amount of their legal dues. Same is disputed by the Respondent-Company by referring the present Writ Petition. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the averments made

¶24

4 41 caw 638.11.doc

¶25

in the present Civil Application, the applicants are allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by respondent no.1 on furnishing security, other than bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the Registry of this court. Therefore, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on the above mentioned condition. Prayer clause (a) reads as under:

¶26

“(a) To allow the Applicants to withdraw Rs.1 lakhs each deposited by the Respondents with the office of the Registrar of this Hon’ble Court and also the proportionate amount from the said sum of Rs.1,43,761/- as per statement at exhibit E hereto.”

¶27

7 Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

Mohmad Iqbal and Ors. v. Patel Engineering Works and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohmad Iqbal and Ors. v. Patel Engineering Works and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation Vs Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra

Khalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. Vs Candulal Chindha Jadhav

Writer Safegaurd Pvt. Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fund and Ors.

The Principal General Manager, B.S.N.L. Vs G.B. Khetade and Anr.

Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and Anr.

Suresh Govind Dhokale and Ors. Vs Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Ltd.