1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2010. (Divisional Controller, MSRTC Nagpur .vrs. Anil M. Jaiswal ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 08, 2010. Heard Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.N. Dandekar, learned counsel for respondent. The petitioner – employer has challenged the order dated 06.12.2008 delivered by the 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur in IDA No. 82/2007 allowing application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directing it to pay amount of Rs. 5,07,522/- with 6% interest from the date of application to the present respondent. Contention of Shri Wankhede, learned counsel is that the respondent has not proved his entitlement to that amount. In support he has invited attention to the cross 2 examination of respondent before the Labour Court recorded on 10.11.2008. In order to explain the delay in approaching this Court, the learned counsel invites attention to paragraph no.25 of the Writ Petition. Shri Dandekar, learned counsel states that there is no reason and delay or latches have been not explained. He further contends that the calculations ought to have been procured from Ramtek depot before the adjudication by Labour Court. He points out that the petitioner did not enter witness box and hence labour Court has no option but to accept the evidence of respondent. The judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4752/2008 (MSRTC .vrs. Ramesh Dinaji Bansod) dated 25.04.2009; in Writ Petition No.5492/2009 and other connected matters (Divisional Controller .vrs. Smt. Padama Bhimrao Wanare) dated 07.05.2010 and orders passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 260/2009 (Divisional Controller .vrs. Abdul Khalid Abdul Gaffar) dated 06.10.2009 and orders dated 04.12.2009 in Letters Patent Appeeal No. 271/2009 (Divisional Controller .vrs. Kundlik D. Durge and others) and dated 16.06.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.20/2010 and other connected matters (Divisional 3 Controller .vrs. Natthyu Ramji Tijare), are pressed into service by him to urge that similar challenge on behalf of the M.S.R.T.C. had already failed. With the assistance of learned counsel I, have perused the papers. The annexure along with 33-C(2) application filed by the respondent are supplied to him by the Union. In cross examination he has expressly stated that he does not know the contents of the said Schedule. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court could not have accepted the calculations therein to arrive at any finding. The position in other matters decided by this Court does not appear to be the same. Shri Dandekar, learned counsel has argued that the Schedule was prepared by the competent officer of the Union and hence the same has been correctly accepted. The entitlement of respondent to benefits claimed by him flows from earlier adjudication, and hence that cannot be disputed, however, amount thereof needs to be computed. The respondent has failed to prove the correctness of that computation before the Labour Court. Even if the petitioner MSRTC does not enter the witness box, it was necessary for the Labour Court to record a finding one way or the other in this respect. That finding has not been recorded. 4 The reason given by the petitioner to approach this Court belatedly cannot be accepted. They have collected the case papers and calculations from their depot at Ramtek and the said reason is therefore insufficient. The petitioner also claims that as per their calculations the respondent is entitled to amount of Rs. 20,267/- only. It is also claimed that, that amount is paid to the respondent and the respondent is denying it. It is not necessary for this Court to decide this aspect. The petitioner – employer was best suited to produce all documents before Labour Court and they have failed to discharge it. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent amount of Rs. 20,267/- as costs in the matter for delay and also for not taking appropriate steps before the Labour Court within time. The costs be paid to respondent by 17.08.2010. If the costs are so paid, the petitioner shall get an opportunity before the Labour Court to point out their calculations and to show the correct amount, which according to them the respondent is entitled to. For this purpose the impugned order dated 06.12.2008 is quashed and set aside. As the matter is already once decided, the proceedings before the Labour Court are expedited and after 5 payment of cost the Labour Court shall decide the same afresh after giving necessary opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three months. Parties to appear before the said Labour Court on 28.07.2010 and abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.