1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5192 OF 2008 Kamalabai Vishnu Tile ..Petitioner. Vs. Block Development Officer ..Respondent. .... Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Petitioner. Mr. V.V. Gangurde for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th November, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Labour Court, in an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directed the Respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.42,600/- towards the claim of the workman for backwages. 2. The Petitioner is the legal heir of Vishnu Abaji Tile whose services came to be terminated on 1st April, 1995. The deceased workman was in the employment of the Respondent as a compounder from 5th August, 1981 to 31st March, 1985. Against the termination of 2 his services the workman had raised an industrial dispute and a reference to adjudication was made. On 10th January, 1997 the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. It appears that in pursuance of certain proceedings which had taken place before a Lok Adalat the Respondent agreed to reinstate the complainant workman following which terms of compromise were recorded in Criminal ULP 40 of 2000. The workman died following which the Petitioner moved an application under Section 33-C(2). The Labour Court has quantified the amount due and payable at Rs.42,600/- which has not been disputed by the Respondent. 3. The challenge by the Petitioner to the order of the Labour Court is that the workman was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,37,500/- on the basis that he was a permanent workman of the Respondent. The Labour Court has noted that it is an admitted fact that the deceased was not a permanent employee and that he was employed temporarily on monthly wages of Rs.200/- at the time of his termination on 31st March, 1995. The dues which were outstanding 3 until the date of reinstatement of 213 months have been computed at Rs.42,600/-. The award of the Labour Court dated 10th January, 1997 does not confer permanency upon the workman. Hence, the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) was not in error in computing the amount due and payable to the workman on the basis of the last drawn wages. Hence, there is no merit in the Petition. It is necessary to clarify that this would not preclude the Petitioner from taking such proceedings as are available in law in regard to the adjudication of such other rights which may be claimed in respect of the services of the deceased workman. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. *****