receiving the communication from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur deposited entire undisputed pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner under recovery certificate issued U/s. 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act, and discharged liability with 15 % interest. Thus, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Municipal Council that the Municipal Council cannot be fastened with a double liability for payment of the amount. The learned Counsel also invited our attention to the communication placed along with the affidavit-in-reply i.e. a communication and order passed by the Collector, Latur dated 16.05.2015. The certificate issued U/s. 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act dated 23.02.2015. The learned Counsel then submitted that the respondent had already deposited the amount in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur and the petitioner may approach to the concerned authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur for receipt of the amount. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to submit before us that the petitioner be permitted to add the other parties to this Contempt Petition and these parties be called upon before this Court for further direction, we are of the opinion that by permitting the petitioner to approach the concerned officer namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur with a proper representation and by issuing certain directions to the
