1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2836/2006 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (Shri M.V. Samarth, Adv. for petitioner) (Shri S.V. Keole, Adv. for respondent) CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 22.3.2007 Order dated 13.1.2006 made by the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allowing the application only to the extent of Rs.16,019.95 without any interest is under challenge in the present writ petition. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, I find that the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. Admittedly, the Bank had not paid the dues of the respondent amounting to Rs.16,019.95. The only defence that was raised by the petitioner – Bank was that they had to recover amount of Rs.50,184.80 from the respondent, but the Labour Court has found as a fact that there was no order of any competent authority for recovery of the said amount nor there 2 was any such order allowing adjustment of Rs.16,019.95. The Labour Court has refused to grant any interest to the respondent despite the fact that the amounts were due right from the year 1991-92 and the Labour Court has given reason therefor. In so far as argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner about the non-existence of existing right is concerned, I have already pointed out that the same right of the non-applicant was not seriously disputed by the petitioner – Bank and on the contrary the defence was set up that the Bank has to recover amount of Rs. 50,184.80. In view of this position, I do not find any case for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw