:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2001 Pundlik Bhikaji Vanave ..Applicant (Ori. Respondent) versus M/s. Jay Enterprises ..Respondent (Ori. Petitioner) Mr. A. B. Avhad for the Applicant / Ori. Respondent. Ms. M. H. Doshi for the Respondent / Ori. Petitioner. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. The respondent was directed to be reinstated by the Order of the Labour Court on the basis that he was employed by the petitioner. The petitioner’s plea was that the respondent is an employee of the contractor. His plea was however negatived. This Court has issued Rule on 13.6.2002 and has stayed the order of reinstatement. The respondent has :2: therefore applied under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case does not attract Section 17-B of the I.D. Act for several reasons. According to the learned counsel the petitioner’s unit which was employing about 8 persons was closed in the year 1996 and therefore there is no functioning unit as of now; the respondent therefore could not have been reinstated and in the circumstances is not entitled to any wages under Section 17-B. There is no rebuttal to this allegation on the part of the respondent. Further it is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent has not denied the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner that he is working in Tathavade and has continued to work there till the age of 60 i.e. the date of superannuation. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the allegation is vague. It is further important to note that vague or otherwise allegation has not been denied by the respondent. In fact it is not even denied on the ground of it being vague. In this view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to grant wages under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. :3: 4. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for extension of time to enable the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in the Labour Court. Time is extended for a period of eight weeks from today on the same terms contained in the Order dated 13.6.2002 passed by this Court. 5. Civil Application is disposed of. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)