1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.264 of 2008 M/s.Modi Rubber Ltd. Petitioner Vs. Jitendra K. Tiwari Respondent With Writ Petition No.280 of 2008 M/s.Modi Rubber Ltd. Petitioner Vs. T. Gopalkrishnan Respondent Mr.K.S.Bapat with Mr.Jayesh Desai for petitioners. Mr.S.P.Dhulapkar for respondents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. February 11, 2008 P.C. . Heard. The petitioner - company in both these petitions is challenging an identical order passed by the Second Labour Court at Mumbai allowing an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent no.2 be deleted from both the petitions. . The respondents - workmen had succeeded in Complaint (ULP) No. 265 of 1993 which was a joint complaint and the same was allowed on 7/8/2001. On or about 20/9/2001 the complaint received the amount of backwages for the period from September 1993 to January 1995. It was the case of the applicants that 2 while calculating the payment of backwages the other components like the yearly increment, difference in dearness allowance, house rent allowance were not taken into consideration and, therefore, they filed Application (IDA) Nos.267 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 for recovery of the financial dues. Both the applications came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and order. . The learned counsel for the petitioner - company at the first instance submitted that it was declared as a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ("SICA" for short) and, therefore, the Labour Court should not have entertained the recovery applications. On the second ground it was submitted that the financial dues sought to be recovered arose from the judgment and order passed in a complaint filed under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and, therefore, the Labour Court could not have entertained the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. . On the first ground the learned counsel for the petitioner - company placed before me copies of the order passed by the Board established under the 3 SICA and in the said orders there is no specific direction for the recovery proceedings filed by the workmen to recover the legal dues, being not entertained. Unless a specific direction is issued in the order passed by the Board, the recoveries could not be stalled when they are the legal dues to be paid to the workmen. On the second ground it is noted that the amount of backwages arising from the complaint filed under the MRTU & PULP Act was already paid and whatever denied was the payment of house rent allowance, annual increments and difference in the dearness allowance etc. It is also seen from the record that no such plea was raised before the Labour Court that these applications were entertained and allowed by the said Board. . Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned orders under the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petitions are rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL