JUDGMENT

Nutan D. Sardessai, J -This petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 24/03/2017 passed by the Labour Commissioner under Section 33(C)1 as also the Recovery Certificate dated 11/05/2017 passed by the Taluka Revenue Officer, Tiswadi under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Heard Shri G.K. Sardessai, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner who submitted that an Award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 30/08/2003 in favour of the respondent No.1 granting reinstatement with full backwages. This Award of the Industrial Tribunal was upheld by this Court vide its judgment dated 21/07/2014 by modifying it to the extent of granting backwages to the extent of 75%. The petitioners had challenged the same before the Supreme Court and where on hearing the learned Counsels an order was passed dated 08/02/2016 pursuant to which the petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 42, 50, 000/- to the respondent No.1 within three weeks. The petitioners had issued a pay order in favour of the respondent No.1 in the amount of Rs. 31, 09, 708/- after deducting the tax at source of Rs. 11, 40, 292/-. A remedy was available to the Respondent No.1 under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the application at his instance under Section 33 (C) 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ''the Act'' for short, for recovery of the account deducted as tax at source was without any basis. They had filed their reply to the said application clearly spelling out that they had deducted the tax at source as per the provisions of the Act and none deduction thereon would amount to a violation thereon. There was a due compliance of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 08/02/2016. The order passed by the Labour Commissioner on the application of the respondent No.1 under Section 33 (C) 1 of the Act was without any basis and had to be quashed and set aside and the said application was not maintainable at the instance of the respondent No.1. The order of the Labour Commissioner had therefore to be quashed and set aside.

3. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 referred to the order of the Hon''ble Apex Court dated 08/02/2016 and the findings recorded by this Court while disposing off the application in a separate petition which were interpreting the order of the Apex Court and binding on this Court. He placed reliance in All India Reporter Ltd. V/s. Ramchandra D. Datar , (1961) AIR SC 943 (V 48 C 151)] and submitted that the deduction of tax at source @30% was not justified. He placed reliance in Saroj Kumar Maheswari v/s. Hindusthan Motors Ltd. and Anr. , (1985) 154 ITR 363 Calcutta, Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s. Captain H.C. Dhanda , (1970) AIR M.P. 205 and submitted that Section 192 of the Income Tax Act could not be brought into play even on its plain reading to his case. There was no basis to deduct the tax at source considering the order of the Apex Court and therefore the petition had to be dismissed.

4. Ms. Amira Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for the Department submitted at the outset that the addition of the Department as a party in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was uncalled for. She next adverted to the order of the Apex Court which required the petitioners to make a deposit in lumpsum in full and final settlement of all the dues of the respondent No.1 and that it was for the respondent No.1 to complete the required procedural formalities from the Income Tax point of view. She raised a query whether it was available to this Court to bifurcate the lumpsum amount ordered in favour of the respondent no.1 by the Hon''ble Apex Court under the head salary and other heads. She adverted to the order passed by this Court dated 04/08/2017 in an earlier petition and submitted that it was not open to the petitioners to re-agitate the issue once again.

5. Ms. A. Razaq, learned Standing Counsel also raised a query whether the Department could be compelled to subject the