WP/9315/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9315 OF 2010 Branee Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai ... Petitioner V/s. Peter Gabriel ... Respondent Mr. A.K. Jalisatgi for the Petitioner. Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 25th August, 2010 passed by the Labour Court, Thane in Application (IDA) No.318 of 2008 allowing the application filed by the respondent-workman under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, partly. 2. The principal objections raised by Mr. Jalisatgi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, are that the Labour Court has granted Privilege Leave of 21 days for each year from 2003 to 2007 : (i). Overtime wages for the same period without mentioning the number of hours worked. WP/9315/2010 2 (ii). Payments at the rate double the wages for the weekly offs for the same period. 3. The learned Advocate submits that there is neither any pleading nor evidence on record to indicate how such amounts have been computed and directed to be paid, nor is there any pleading. Furthermore, he submits that at best the accumulation in respect of the Privilege Leave for the period 2003 to 2007 could have been granted only for 42 days and not any more. 4. On a perusal of the pleadings, the evidence and the order of the Labour Court, in my opinion, the impugned order ought to be set aside. There are lacunae in the pleadings as well as the evidence in as much as there are no details provided by the respondent-workman as to how he has claimed the amounts in the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, despite which the Labour Court has allowed the application. 5. Mr. Ganguli, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-workman, states that the Labour Court was incorrect in refusing the amount towards bonus claimed by the respondent-workman in his application. WP/9315/2010 3 6. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010, passed by the Labour Court, Thane in Application (IDA) No.318 of 2008, is set aside. 8. The Application (IDA) No.318 of 2008 is remanded to the Labour Court, Thane for a fresh hearing. 9. The Labour Court, Thane shall decide the Application (IDA) No.318 of 2008 within a period of six months from today. 10. The parties are permitted to amend their pleadings. The parties are also permitted to lead additional evidence, if necessary. 11. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Thane on 21st February, 2011.