( 1 ) wp4245.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4245 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through Divisional Controller, Division – Aurangabad. .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Smt. Vishrantibai wd/o. Daulatrao Misal, Age. 75 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Shantipura, Cantonment, Aurangabad. .. Respondents 2. Shri Samson s/o. Daulatrao Misal, Age. 42 years, R/o. Shantipura, Cantonment, Aurangabad. 3. Shri Sanjay s/o. Daulatrao Misal, Age about 33 years, R/o. Shantipura, Cantonment, Aurangabad. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. R.P. Pawar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30.09.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is challenging the interlocutory order dated 14.10.2010, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, ( 2 ) wp4245.11 directing the petitioner to furnish details of pay, dearness allowance, other allowances and bonus payable to Class IV employee in their service between 1992 to 2005. This direction was given due to a peculiar situation. It so happened that respondent No.1’s son (and respondent Nos.2 and 3’s brother) one Sudarshan was admittedly in the employment of the petitioner/Corporation. In 1992 Sudarshan filed Complaint U.L.P. No. 204 of 1992 before the Industrial Court and the same was allowed on 13.01.2003. The order directed the petitioner to give the complainant (Sudarshan) the status and privileges of permanent employee as a Sweeper or any other Class IV employee from the date of the complaint. Sudarshan and other employees of the petitioner had filed the complaint U.L.P. Application mainly based on Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It reads as under :- “To employ employee as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees.” 3. The petitioner filed writ petition against said order of 2003 in this Court, but they could not obtain an order of stay to the effect of the order of 2003. Sudarshan, in the meantime died in 2005. Sudarshan ( 3 ) wp4245.11 probably did not continue as workman after that order and in 2005 as said above he died. After his death the respondents filed application under Section 50 of the Act. In order to understand the purport of the application one must read S.50. It reads as under :- “Where any money is due to an employee from an employer under an order passed by the Court under Chapter VI, the employee himself or any other person authorized by him in writing in his behalf, or in the case of death of the employ, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the Court for the recovery of money due to him, and if the Court is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall, proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land revenue : Provided that, every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the employee from the employer : Provided further that, any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the Court is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.” 4. The respondents made a request to the Court that the monitory benefits arising from the order of 2003 should be paid to them. They, however, did not calculate the exact amount to which they are entitled to. After they filed the present application in 2006, they first tried to get the data required for calculating the amount. But, somehow the petitioner stalled such process. Ultimately, at the request of the respondents, the impugned order was passed. ( 4 ) wp4245.11 5. According to the learned Member of the Industrial Court, this information was necessary for the purpose of calculating the monitory benefits arising from the order of 2003. The impugned order in my view is quite innocuous and would not cause any prejudice whatsoever to the petitioner because even after furnishing this information the petitioner has every right to oppose the application under Section 50 of the said Act on all counts including the defence based on the judgment of this Court in the case of V. Ramanathan Vs. Hindusthan Lever Limited & Anr., 2001 (4) Bom.C.R.441. I am purposely avoiding discussion of this judgment not to prejudice parties by my opinion. The Industrial Court as suggested above would be free to take into account defence based in this judgment inter-alia while deciding the application. The petition, therefore, should fail. The petition stands dismissed. 6. The parties shall appear before the learned Member of the Industrial Court on 10th October, 2011. 7. Certified copy expedited. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp4245.11ok