wp6712.98.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6712 OF 1998 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ....Petitioner. Vs. M.E. Takpere ....Respondent. Mr. G.S. Hegde for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 20th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 26/02/1998, whereby the Labour Court, Solapur, has allowed the application under Section 33­C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) and directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,540/­ on account of O.T. Wages, TA difference and wages on account of Nation holiday as claimed. 2 The basic objection raised by the Petitioner at the relevant time that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide and/or determine the award of disputed entitlement for the first time in such application was rejected. 3 In the present case, the application was for various claims of wage differences, for the period from 1978 to 31/09/1984. However, it was without providing the details and the reasons as to why the same were not claimed at the appropriate time. Mere filing of such application itself, is not wp6712.98.sxw 2 sufficient, basically when the Petitioner­employer is disputing the same on all the grounds. 4 In the present case, the Respondent stepped into the witness box and adduced oral, as well as, documentary evidence to support the case. The Labour Court has gone into the details and determined all these claims for the first time in the Petition, which in my view, is not permissible. The Court has power to grant the amount so claimed, based upon the existing rights/ and/or the claims already adjudicated in some other proceedings and/or an admitted amount. All these elements are missing in the present case. It is not permissible for the Executing Court to decide and adjudicate such claims for the first time and passed the order as done in the present case. In my view, therefore, the impugned order so passed is unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the Respondent is at liberty to raise appropriate dispute or plea in accordance with law. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with liberty to apply for modification of the order, if any. The Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited. 5 The Petition is accordingly allowed, with liberty. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)