1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4853 of 2010 (Madhao Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and another v. Smt. Pramilabai Manikrao Katwale) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 7 th July, 2011 1. The Labour Court, Gondia, by its judgment and order dated 11-12-2009 passed in IDA No.18 of 2007, has directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.40,500/- towards wages to the respondent-employee for the period from 1995 to 2000. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that the respondent-employee has a pre-existing right to claim the monetary benefits and her entitlement is established to the extent of Rs.40,500/- for the period from 1995 to 2000. The Labour Court has recorded the specific finding on the basis of the order of appointment that the respondent-employee had served during the period from 1-7-1995 to 30-4-2000. The contention raised by the Management that the documents were fabricated or forged, has been rejected. It has been held that the petitioners have failed to place on record any evidence to substantiate their contentions. The findings of fact are based upon the evidence available on 2 record. The same, therefore, do not call for any interference. 2. Shri Shende, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Brijpal Singh, reported in AIR 2006 SC 3592, to urge that there was no “employer-employee” relationship and there was no pre-existing right to claim the arrears of salary. The Apex Court was dealing with the case of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was answered by directing reinstatement. The Apex Court has held that under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot proceed to make an enquiry in respect of back wages payable to the complainant. The said judgment is, therefore, of no help to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. There is no jurisdictional error pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, no interference is called for in this petition. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl