1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1620 OF 2010. Zilla Parishad, Bhandara and another -: VERSUS :- Mrs. Nirmala Digambar Mahadeokar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 23, 2010. Heard Mrs. M.P. Munshi, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri M.P. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for respondent. It appears that seeking execution of an order of Industrial Court, the petitioner filed two proceedings, one was under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, while the other was under Section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Both the proceedings are identically worded and are filed on the same date. Along with both the proceedings entitlement as per the employee is given in Annexure-A. Industrial Court has considered application under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act and delivered its order on 22.12.2006 and found that the applicant is entitled to pension with balance amount of the same and Gratuity. The Labour Court has considered the application under Section 2 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act before it and has delivered the judgment on 12.11.2008 and quantified the amount of arrears of back wages payable to the applicant before it, at Rs.3,37,113/-. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the respondent could not have maintained two proceedings simultaneously. The other contentions is, the annexure filed before the Industrial Court was not produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court could not have decided the controversy without perusal of the said annexure. Contention is, order of Industrial Court operated as res-judicata and the learned Labour Court could not have taken cognizance under Section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel states that as the matter arose out of the same judgment of Labour Court and Industrial Court, application under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act and under section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act were identically worded. However, the entitlement therein was given in annexures and Annexure-A (chart) i.e. calculations with both the proceedings were different. Before the Industrial Court it contained calculation of pension, while before the Labour Court it contained calculations of arrears of back wages. He states that the Labour Court has noticed this difference and therefore, has rightly allowed the application under Section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is apparent that on 08.11.1995 the Labour Court, Bhandara granted present respondent relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity. The said 3 order was challenged before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court dismissed that revision on 22.03.1999. Writ Petition No. 3814/1999 filed against it thereafter was rejected on 14.08.2006. Thereafter on 29.08.2006 the proceedings under Section 33 C-2, were filed by the employee and it is apparent that the present petitioners are also party respondents in both the matter. Notice of both the matters were served upon the petitioners/respondents and petitioners also raised objection before the Labour Court about the maintainability of Section 33 C-2 application. It is therefore, clear that there was no suppression by the employee in any way. The remedy under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act and also remedy under section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act is available to the respondent and he has taken recourse to both. It is not the contention of the petitioners before this Court that either of the remedies is not available. The contention is having resorted to proceedings under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act, the recourse to Section 33 C-2 is barred by principles of res judicata. The contention cannot be accepted. Labour Court has correctly appreciated the situation. Though the employee did not produce in Labour Court the chart filed by him before the Industrial Court, it is not the case of petitioner before this Court that said chart and chart considered by the Labour Court over lap in any way. The contention that respondent ought to have filed that chart before the Labour Court or Labour Court ought to have perused the chart before deciding the application under Section 33 C-2, is therefore misconceived. 4 There is no challenge to the merits of computation by the Labour Court before this Court. No case is therefore, made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.