1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 143 OF 2010 (Krishok Agriculture Agency vs. The Tahsildar, Katol & Ors.) 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. MARCH 17, 2010. Heard finally Shri M.R. Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 and Shri Dhande, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The contention of Shri M.R. Pillai, learned counsel is that under Section 33-C (1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the computation of back wages of Respondent No. 2 could not have been undertaken by Respondent No. 3. His second contention is in any way said computation could not have been done without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He points out that award dated 06.02.2004 delivered by First Labour Court, Nagpur, in Reference I.D.A. No. 361 of 1996 is ex parte award and appropriate steps to have it set aside are already initiated. Shri Dhande, learned counsel has filed reply. He relies upon the award dated 06.02.2004 to show that the rate of wages last drawn by Respondent No. 2 is 2 found to be Rs.750/- per month. He relies upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bilaspur Spinning Mills & Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Raipur, reported at 1999 LAB. I.C. 3501, to urge that in such circumstances and in absence of any plea of prejudice, the proceedings under Section 33-C(1) of the Act, do not warrant any opportunity of hearing. Lastly, he contends that application to set aside ex parte award is already rejected by Labour Court. Shri Kankale, learned AGP argues that under Section 33-C (1) of the Act, simple arithmetical calculations can be undertaken. The award dated 06.02.2004 is passed and it appears that the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings. Whether the petitioner was responsible for such non participation or then there was just and sufficient reason for him not to appear, is the issue which can be gone into by the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. The impugned award shows that there is a finding that employee was paid Rs.750/- per month as salary. There is a direction to pay full back wages. Thus, only arithmetical calculations to found out entitlement needs to be undertaken and for that purpose the opportunity of hearing would not have been necessary in normal circumstances. However, here as the award is ex parte, the opportunity of hearing is felt necessary but then in that event Respondent No. 2 3 cannot be made to suffer. While issuing notice and granting stay in favour of the petitioner on 13.01.2010, this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount as demanded by Respondent No.3. Accordingly, that amount of Rs.51,000/- is deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court. Respondent No. 2 is permitted to withdraw that amount. Subject to this permission, the recovery certificate issued by Respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and in favour of Respondent No. 2 is set aside. The said authority shall hear the petitioner in the matter and pass appropriate orders as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2010. The parties shall appear before Respondent No.3 on 29th March 2010 and shall abide by his further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.