1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6030/2010 (Baliram Rambhau Kalambay VERSUS The Manager, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Labour Court, Akola on 25.08.2009 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the case of the petitioner that he had retired from service on 30.09.2001 but, the respondents had failed to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner till 03.06.2003. The dues in regard to the leave encashment were paid to the petitioner on 03.06.2003. The petitioner, therefore, in the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claimed interest on the amount paid to him towards leave encashment @ 24% per annum as according to the petitioner, he was entitled to receive the amount towards leave encashment immediately on his retirement on 30.09.2001. The respondents filed the reply to the application. The respondents pleaded that the petitioner had filed an application under the Industrial Disputes Act and it was 2 decided by the Labour Court on 03.06.2005. It was pleaded in the reply that during the pendency of the application filed in the year 1991, the petitioner had submitted a letter to the respondents on 14.02.2002 stating therein that the petitioner’s salary and retiral benefits be released to him only after the case filed before the Labour Court in the year 1991 was decided. In the evidence of the respondents, it was stated that there were some deficiencies in the service book and after those deficiencies were removed, the leave encashment amount was immediately paid to the petitioner. The Labour Court by the order dated 25.08.2009, rejected the application filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that he had clearly stated in the communication dated 13.02.2002 issued to the respondents that he was not willing to accept the pension as well as the other retiral benefits until his case filed before the Labour Court was decided. The Labour Court in the impugned order heavily relied on the communication dated 13.02.2002 to hold that there was no fault on the part of the respondents in paying the leave encashment amount in the year 2003. The Labour Court further observed that the petitioner had not proved his right to claim interest @ 24% per annum on the belated payment of leave encashment amount in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court on 25.08.2009 does not suffer from any error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE