1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3786 OF 2008 (Dy. Conservator of Forest vs. Subhash Manoharrao Kalambe ) 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. NOVEMBER 11, 2008. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kalbande, learned counsel for the respondent. The challenge is to the judgment dated 22.8.2006 passed by Labour Court, Wardha, on an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing the present petitioner – employer to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,816/- towards back wages and bonus to present respondent with 12% interest. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel points out that as per orders of this Court dated 1.9.2008, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was to be deposited within a period of four weeks from that date, however, it has been deposited litter later and hence Civil Application No. 8241 of 2008 has been moved seeking extension of time for that purposes. Shri Kalbande, learned counsel has no 2 objection for extension of time. Accordingly, the prayer made in Civil Application No. 8241 of 2008 is granted and time is extended till the date of actual deposit of the amount in this Court. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner on merits contends that the respondent has not brought on record the fact that he was working on monthly salary or then that he was entitled to any bonus. He contends that burden in this respect was upon the respondent and it was the case of present petitioner that he was working under EGS on daily wages of Rs.7/- per day as and when work was available. He contends that passing of judgment in an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act that too with 12% interest is unwarranted. He further points out that after the judgment of Labour Court in his favour, the employee was called upon time and again to join his duties but he did not join till 22.9.1997 and therefore, he is not entitled to any wages for the period from 26.2.1997 till 22.9.1997 i.e. the date of joining. Shri Kalbande, learned counsel for the respondent states that the Labour Court has found that the petitioner could not establish that the respondent was working under EGS or that he was being paid his wages daily. He states that all 3 relevant records were with the petitioner and in view of earlier award dated 26.2.1997 in favour of the present respondent directing his reinstatement with continuity and back wages, the burden lay heavy upon the present petitioner to prove all these facts. He further states that the petitioner never suggested to the respondent that he deliberately did not join though various letters were served upon him to join the duties. He states that as continuous service of the respondent has been established on record, he is also entitled to bonus and the amount has accordingly been rightly allowed. He further states that 12% interest is granted by the Labour Court in its discretion and this Court should not interfere in the matter. After hearing both counsel, I find that there is an earlier adjudication in favour of present respondent on 26.2.1997 by the Labour Court. By the said adjudication, the present respondent was found entitled to reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. The said order dated 26.2.1997 has not been questioned by the petitioner in any way. The impugned judgment dated 22.8.2006 is passed upon an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act, filed by the present respondent for securing the amount as per the orders/ award of Labour Court 4 dated 26.2.1997. The Labour Court has found that the present petitioner did not enter witness box and the petitioner has not proved that the respondent was working under EGS. He was being paid his wages daily @ Rs.7/- per day. In the circumstances, in the present matter, it is apparent that burden was heavy upon the present petitioner that the respondent was employee under EGS and on daily wages at Rs.7/- per day. Being government establishment, the petitioner could have easily produced the relevant records and proved before the Labour Court. The perusal of order dated 26.2.1997 shows that no such steps have been taken by the present petitioner. In this background, no objection can be taken to the application of mind by the Labour Court. The contention of Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent did not join duties and avoided to join though several letters were served upon him to join the duties, is not supported by the relevant facts and evidence on record. The petitioner has in cross examination of the respondent suggested it to him and he has denied and he stated that he joined the duties immediately as per Court's order on 22.9.1997. It has not been put to him that in spite 5 of service of various letters to join the duties, he avoided to join. However, it is well known that bank rates have fallen drastically after the order dated 26.2.1997 was passed in favour of present respondent. Grant of interest at 12% per annum in these circumstances cannot be maintained. I am, therefore, inclined to reduce the said rate from 12% per annum to 6% per annum. In the circumstances, writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified only to the extent of grant of interest at 12% per annum to the present respondent. The respondent is held entitled to 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of application till its realisation. The respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.