Writ interference with pre-deposit orders is limited; partial deposit was upheld absent perversity, unfairness, or jurisdictional error.

Writ interference with a Tribunal's interlocutory pre-deposit order is limited to cases of perversity, unreasonableness, lack of material, natural justice breach, or jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had weighed the prima facie case, the factual allegations, the effect claimed for the Settlement Commission's order, and the plea of financial hardship before directing only a partial deposit rather than a full waiver. As no such legal infirmity was shown, the order was left undisturbed and the pre-deposit direction was maintained, with time extended only for compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit and staying recovery only to a limited extent.

Analysis: Interference in writ jurisdiction with an interlocutory order of the Tribunal is confined to cases where the order is perverse, unreasonable, or unsupported by material. The Tribunal had considered the factual allegations, the prima facie case, the petitioner's stand regarding the effect of the Settlement Commission's order, and the plea of financial hardship before directing partial deposit instead of granting total waiver. No violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error was shown.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was not disturbed. The pre-deposit direction was maintained, with only an extension of time for compliance.

---