JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner was an employer of the deceased respondent who is now represented in the present litigation under the Workmens' Compensation Act by the legal heirs and representatives and who had filed a claim for workmens' compensation against the petitioner on account of death of the deceased arising out of accident during the course of his employment with the petitioner. The legal heirs had claimed an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the petitioner. It appears from the record that the petitioner and his Advocate both were absent and passed an ex parte order on 20th December 1991 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It further appears that the petitioner having come to know that an ex parte order was passed against him, he filed an application for setting aside the said order. He also filed subsequently an application for condonation of delay in filing such an application. It also appears that the learned Commissioner was not satisfied with the grounds for the petitioner's absence in the Court on the date when the ex parte order was passed and therefore, he did not condone the delay and dismissed both the applications. It appears that in the said application for condonation of delay, the petitioner had made an incorrect statement regarding the knowledge of the ex parte order. The present respondents had pointed out to the learned Commissioner that the petitioner had come to know about the order of 24th July, 1992 and his statement that he came to know about the same on 10th August, 1992 was a deliberate false statement and therefore, he should be prosecuted under section 181 of the I.P.C. for making a false statement on oath. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 10th December, 1993 dismissed the petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte order and for condonation of delay and further directed prosecution of the petitioner under section 195 of the Cri.P.C. read with section 181 of the I.P.C. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Commissioner on 10th December, 1993. 2.Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement under instructions from his client that the insurance company on behalf of the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs. 2.Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement under instructions from his client that the insurance company on behalf of the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs. 1 lakh in the Tribunal as ordered and that he will have no objection for withdrawal of the same by the respondents along with interest accrued if any. Shri Joshi has also pointed out that having paid the said amount his client does not wish to prosecute the present matter even before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner. Shri Joshi further pointed out that there was bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner when two different dates were given. There appears to be some confusion and communication gap between the petitioner and his Advocate who had drafted the applications for setting aside the ex parte order and condonation of delay. There appears to be an unintentional mistake in giving the dates. Shri Joshi, therefore, prays that his client should not be prosecuted under section 181 of I.P.C. read with 195 of Cri.P.C. as ordered by the Commissioner who also is the Labour Judge of the Labour Court at Dhule. 3.According to me, no useful purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner. The petitioner has already complied with the order passed by the Commissioner by getting the amount of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by the Insurance Company as awarded and by making a statement that the respondents are at liberty to withdrawn the same and that he does not wish to come in their way to get the said amount of compensation. 4.I accept the statement of Shri Joshi that there was some communication gap and unintentional mistake committed by the petitioner in giving dates. Since the petitioner has no objection for the legal heirs of the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited pursuant to the order of the Commissioner no useful purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner. 5.The petition is partly allowed and rule is made absolute to the extent of quashing and setting aside the order No. 3 of the impugned order dated 10th December 1993. The petitioner shall, however, pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- each to Smt. Chayya Rambhau Khandekar and Vijay Khandekar towards cost of this petition. The petitioner shall pay this cost to them within a period of 4 weeks from today. The petitioner shall, however, pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- each to Smt. Chayya Rambhau Khandekar and Vijay Khandekar towards cost of this petition. The petitioner shall pay this cost to them within a period of 4 weeks from today. 6.All concerned to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of the Court. Petition partly allowed. -----