1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5250 OF 2009 (The President, Madhuban Urban Coop. Credit Society Ltd. vs. Kum. Chanda D. Kadu @ Chanda D. Barve & Ors.) 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. MARCH 29, 2010. Heard finally Shri Kakani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondent No.2. It appears that though respondent No.1 is not in employment, the issue could not be resolved amicably between the parties. Hence, this Court has heard the learned counsel for the respective parties finally. The contention of Shri Kakani, learned counsel is without working out any existing right in favour of Respondent No.1, the application under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been allowed by ignoring written notes of arguments, as filed, by overlooking the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.W.T. Corporation vs. Workmen , reported at AIR 1974 SC 1604, and without determining the exact status of Respondent No.1. He argues that Respondent No. 1 all the while was a Part Time 2 employee receiving stipend in that post. He has invited attention to relevant cross examination of said respondent. Shri Patil, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that the respondent has accepted payment of stipend because her wages were shown as stipend and chart prepared has been found to be as per minimum wages of wages applicable to Respondent No.1. He, therefore, states that as no disputed questions as to entitlement were involved, Labour Court has rightly granted the relief. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by Shri Kakani, learned counsel points out the limited scope of jurisdiction available to Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The question whether the employee is receiving wages as per Minimum Wages or not can be gone into under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has at the end of its order, correctly concluded that the chart prepared and filed before it by the employee was in accordance with minimum wages. The admission in para 5 by the respondent that said chart was imaginary one, therefore, is not very significant. However, from recording of evidence, it appears that the employee joined in October 1996 and she was absorbed in April 2000. The status at the time of joining or then status after joining, has not been decided by the Labour Court. The contention of Shri Kakani, learned 3 counsel is though employee has in para 3 denied that in April 2000, she was absorbed as Part Time employee, in next para she has accepted that she initially joined as Part Time employee. This cross examination is not decisive of the status of employee either way. The Labour Court ought to have recorded a specific finding about her status as Part Time employee or Full Time employee. As that has not been done, I find it proper to remand the matter back to Labour Court for consideration of that aspect. However, the same shall be subject to the petitioner depositing before Labour Court 50% of the amount as awarded, without prejudice to its rights. The said amount shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by employee till the proceedings are finally decided. At this stage, Shri Kakani, learned counsel states that the amount actually paid to the respondent as stipend and received by her is also in dispute. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that the employer is at liberty to file appropriate chart in this respect. The Labour Court, therefore, to find out entitlement of Respondent No. 1 to receive exact amount afresh. The Labour Court shall attempt to decide these aspects afresh after giving parties necessary opportunity to lead their fresh evidence, if necessary and in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2010. Subject to this and only for the purpose of determination of status of employee, the said order is set 4 aside. The proceedings in IDA No. 136 of 2004 are restored back to the file of Labour Court. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.