1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 105/2010 (THE REGIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT OFOFICER, GOVT. MILK SCHEME VS. SAYYAD SALEEM SAYYAD KASAM) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Thakare, AGP. For petitioner. Mr. M.R.Pillai, Advocate, for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2010. Heard. The monetary benefits released in favour of respondent/complainant as per order dated 18th July, 2001 from October 1993 were sought to be removed/cancelled and that cancellation was impugned in Complaint ULPA NO. 31/2002. That complaint has been allowed by learned Member of Industrial Court on 30/06/2008. Learned AGP for petitioner employer contends that learned Member of Industrial Court has found that the action taken was in breach of principles of natural justice. He further points out that there was a Government Resolution which do not permit such grant and hence learned Member of Industrial Court could not have allowed the complaint. Advocate Manoj Raju has invited attention to the fact that said withdrawal was only because of alleged waiver 2 thereof by respondent. He invites attention to additional pleadings – Paragraph (b) in reply as filed before the Industrial Court. He points out that the witness for petitioner himself accepted in cross examination that respondent had not waived such benefits and his application Exh.41 did not contain any such stipulation. With the assistance of respective counsel, I perused the papers. I find that learned Member of Industrial Court has basically found that before such withdrawal, principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. Even on merits, it is apparent that the reasons put forth for such withdrawal has not been substantiated before the industrial Court. Witness Shri Sudhir Kulkarni examined by petitioner has in cross examination accepted that application Exh.41 submitted by respondent did not disclose giving up of monetary benefits. It is, therefore, apparent that no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.