1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5578 OF 2009. The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Wardha -: versus :- Waman N. Nirmal 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 : FEBRUARY 24 , 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri P.D. Meghe, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.A. Kalbande, learned counsel for respondent. Learned Counsel for petitioner points out that respondent, a superannuated employee has filed claim for salary from 29.11.1994 to 30.03.1995 and salary for two days i.e. 28.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 under Section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He states that the claim pertains to period during which the employee was transferred and did not join. He retired on superannuation on 01.08.2003 and thereafter on 02.05.2008 i.e. after 5 years after retirement the present proceedings are filed. Hence application under Section 36[4] of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by him could not be entertained and in any case as the complicated and disputed question right from the availability of “existing right” in his favour were involved, the application for setting aside that order and for permission to appear through Advocate filed by the petitioner, ought to have been granted. 2 During hearing Shri Mehge, learned counsel fairly states that if this Court is inclined, an amount of Rs. 2000/- can be paid to the respondent to engage Advocate to represent him before the Labour Court. Shri Kalbande, learned counsel appearing for respondent on the other hand upon instructions stated that respondent is opposing such request. However, he is not in a position to explain the latches and also the availability of existing right on the basis of material available to this Court. In this situation as the proceedings under Section 33 C-2 are only executory in nature and are based upon the existing right, it is apparent that in present facts some complicated questions even requiring technical knowledge do arise and an officer of petitioner will not be in position to defend it effectively in the matter. Hence, the impugned order dated 25.03.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner is permitted to engage Advocate to represent it in proceedings i.e. I.D.A. Case No. 7/2008 on the file of the Labour Court, Wardha. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.