DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.) In this writ petition, Annexure P-5, has been sought to be quashed and set aside. The same pertains to a direction to the employer of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) to respondent No. 5 and also the maintenance allowance. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
(2.) On 23.9.2019, after hearing this matter for some time the following order came to be passed: "We have heard this matter for some time. Original counsel representing respondent No. 2-Commission is not present. Prayer for adjournment as made is allowed. List on 30th October, 2019. Respondent No. 2 to assist this Court on the next date as to under what provisions of law, the impugned order Annexure P-1, directing thereby the deduction of the salary of the petitioner to the extent of 50% and deposit thereof in the account of respondent No. 5, has been passed."
(3.) On the next date, the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2, on instructions, informed this Court that respondent No. 2 has not directed the employer of the petitioner to make deduction from the salary to the extent of 50% and deposit thereof in the account of respondent No. 5, his wife. Also that only a request was made to the employer to make deduction to the extent of 50% from the salary of the petitioner and deposit thereof in the account of his wife, respondent No. 5. On asking as to what is even the source of such persuasion by respondent No. 2, learned counsel failed to answer the query of this Court. The order dated 30.10.2019 in this regard is also reproduced as under: "Learned counsel representing respondent No. 2-Commission submits that the said respondent has not directed qua deduction of the salary of the petitioner to the extent of 50% and deposit thereof in the account of respondent No. 5-wife. Only a request was made to the employer to make deduction to the extent of 50% out of the salary of the petitioner and deposit thereof in the account of his wife-respondent No. 5. What is the source of such persuasion, learned counsel failed to satisfy this Court. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 2- Commission, at the most could have reconcile the disputes and left it open to respondent-wife to initiate proceedings for providing maintenance to her in appropriate form, in accordance with law. Anyhow, respondent No. 2 has not issued any direction in this regard. Being so and also that the original counsel representing the petitioner is not present, list on 18th November, 2019." ;