1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2002/2009 (Chaman Sukhlal Kanojiya Vs. Blue Star Roller Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 8 , 2009 . None appears on behalf of the petitioner. I have, however, perused the impugned order dated 6/10/2008 as also the documents annexed to the petition. On a perusal of the same, it is clear that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Wardha, committed no error whatsoever in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Court rightly observed that under the provisions of Section 33(c)(2) of the Act, the Labour Court had no authority to adjudicate on the disputed questions arising between the parties. In the instant case, it was observed that there was no pre- adjudication or an award or settlement between the parties. Though the petitioner had claimed leave encashment for a period of 21 days, the necessary data or evidence in that regard was not produced by the petitioner. The Court rightly observed that merely stating the total number of days on which the petitioner worked after a lapse of 11 years, was not sufficient to 2 grant the relief to the petitioner. So far as the claim of weekly off and public holidays was concerned, the Court observed that the petitioner has himself admitted that he had availed those facilities during his employment. He also admitted in his evidence that he had not made any request for quarter/accommodation, and had also filed a complaint before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, against the respondent. As regards Washing Allowance, the Court observed that the petitioner did not produce anything on record in the form of an agreement or settlement to show that the respondent was liable to pay for uniform and the Washing Allowance to the petitioner. The claims made by the petitioner in the application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were neither pre-adjudicated nor the same were based on an agreement or settlement and since they were seriously disputed by the respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Wardha, rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(c) (2) of the Act. There is no error whatsoever, much less a jurisdictional error, to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE 3 RMP