1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.24 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1223 OF 2007 Blue Star Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Joaquim G.D’Costa. ..Respondent. Mr.V.P.Vaidya for applicant. Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.Rajesh Rele, Vinod Tadyade i/b. Piyush Shah for respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and documents on record. 2. In the context of the relief claimed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Petitioner has not only asserted that the Respondent is gainfully engaged and is earning income from the Restaurant viz. Race View Restaurant at K.K.Marg, Race Course, Gate 8, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034, but also produced documents to support their claim that the Respondent has interest in the said business. The Petitioner has also placed on record strong circumstance to indicate that even the telephone used 2 in the Restaurant has been issued in the name of the Respondent and that the licence issued by the Authority indicates that the Respondent and his brother are the co-owners in the business. 3. The Respondent has filed affidavit and has denied the claim of the Petitioner. The Respondent has stated on affidavit that the property, on which the said Restaurant is being conducted, is ancestral property in which, the Respondent has share. However, he is not deriving any share or income from the restaurant business, which is exclusively conducted by his brother and belongs to him. 4. Except these bare words of the Respondent, there is no material or contemporaneous record produced to reassure the Court that the Respondent in fact is not associated with the business inspite of the licence having been issued jointly in the name of the Respondent and his brother and that the telephone used in the Restaurant also stands in the name of the Respondent. The Respondent has not bothered to file affidavit of brother to support the stand of the Respondent or produce accounts in relation to the Restaurant business to substantiate the stand that the Respondent was not receiving any income from the 3 said business and had no share therein. 5. Thus understood, it necessarily follows that the Respondent is gainfully employed and must be receiving income from the Restaurant business. On that finding, the question of granting any relief to the Respondent in terms of Section 17B of the Act does not arise. The Motion therefore, fails. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)