1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 54 of 2010 IN Writ Petition No. 4115 of 2009 [decided] [Agricultural Produce Market Committee & another Vs. Murlidhar S. Sarokar] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. G.G. Mishra, Adv., for the appellants. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 28th January, 2010. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. G.G. Mishra for the appellants. 2. The Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 06 th November, 2009 is under challenge. 3. To substantiate the contention, learned Adv. for the appellants has placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in case of Getwell Board and Oaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fakruddin S. Lokhandwala and another [2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 246]. 2 4. The appellants claim that respondent's claim as agitated under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not based on existing legal right. 5. Respondent's claim was for wages towards the period he claims that he had attended the duty. 6. The fact that the respondent had attended the duty is not in dispute. 7. Entitlement of the respondent to receive the wages is disputed on the ground that though respondent had attended the duty, he had not performed the work. 8. The defence is, in fact, in the shape of imputation of misconduct. 9. Once the reporting on duty is admitted, failure to perform duties properly can never be used as a ground for denying liability to pay the wages. 10. Be it that the employer's plea is that the workman had committed acts of negligence or disobedience, insubordination, proper recourse was a charge-sheet for misconduct, enquiry, removal etc., but not the denial of wages. 11. The grounds raised in the Memo of Appeal against impugned orders are based on 3 ingenuity than legal grounds. 12. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|