1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4063 OF 2009. ( M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur -: versus :- The First Labour Court and another ) 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 : JULY 12, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri Dandekar, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Short grievance made by Mrs. Maldhure, learned counsel is that though, at the relevant time respondent no.2 was not cross examined and no evidence was adduced by the petitioners, the records of MSRTC revealed that entitlement of respondent no.2 worked out to Rs. 47,931/-. She states that the Labour Court has erroneously granted amount of Rs.81,727/-. She further points out that this amount is already deposited with the Registry of this Court because of 2 the interim orders passed in Writ Petition. She contends that the schedule accepted by the Labour Court is not proved in accordance with the law and respondent no.2 also did not approach the Labour Court with clean hands. Her contention is, increments withheld have not been disclosed to the Court. Shri Dandekar, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand contends that no material was suppressed and respondent no.2 filed his evidence in the shape of affidavit. In that affidavit he also disclosed the schedule and as there was no cross examination, the Labour Court therefore was justified in accepting the said schedule while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C[2] of Industrial Disputes Act. His contention is, after 8 years the calculations have been obtained and are sought to be produced before this Court for the first time. I have perused the relevant papers. It appears that respondent no.2 has in his affidavit stated that his entitlement is worked out in the schedule. However, he has not said anything specifically about the contents of the schedule. Petitioners also did not cross examine him, and hence, before Labour Court there was nothing to show that the contents of Schedule were in dispute. Petitioners also did not lead any evidence. In this position, Labour Court has 3 accepted that Schedule and delivered the award accordingly. The subsequent calculations produced by the petitioners before this Court show that respondent no.2 is not entitled to that amount and his entitlement as shown in Writ Petition is Rs. 47,931/-. In these circumstances, I, am inclined to permit the petitioners a chance to cross examine respondent no.2 and to lead evidence in defence. The same shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by them to respondent no.2 by 15.08.2010. If the costs are so paid before the Labour Court, the Labour Court shall permit the petitioners to cross examine respondent no.2 and to lead their evidence in defence. Shri Dandekar, learned counsel at this stage states that in view of the calculations being pressed into service, an amendment to application under Section 33-C[2] of the Act and additional evidence on behalf of respondent no.2 are also necessary. In view of the request, respondent no.2 is permitted to move appropriate application for amendment and to lead additional evidence before the Labour Court. After such amendment and evidence of respondent no.2, Labour Court shall permit the petitioners to lead their evidence. Needless to mention that after the amendment is 4 allowed by the trial Court, the employer is free to carry out consequential amendment within a period of one week. The party succeeding in Labour Court shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit and Labour Court shall attempt to decide the matter as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. Parties to appear before the First Labour Court, Nagpur on 16.08.2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.