1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3232 of 2011 Ramesh N. Dudhankar ..VS.. Patru R. Dhok and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.S. Ghate, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Kalbande, Adv. for the respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 20 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act on 4.5.2011 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.24,833/- to the respondent no. 1 towards unpaid wages for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the realization of the amount. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the authority was justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 and directing the petitioner to pay the unpaid wages to the respondent no.1 for the relevant years. The authority held that the evidence of the respondent no.1 and his witness was more trustworthy and reliable than the evidence of the petitioner. The authority found that the respondent no. 1 had proved that he was engaged as “Salkari” by the petitioner during the period from 2005- 06 and 2006-07 and had not paid him the wages of Rs. 24,833/-. The finding recorded by the authority in this regard cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction as the same is a pure finding of facts based on the ,material on record. 2 The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and since there was no separate application for condonation of delay in filing the application, the authority ought not have entertained the application, is liable to be rejected. The authority rightly considered that the respondent no.1 had moved the wrong forum in the year 2006 and had withdrawn the complaint filed under the Industrial Disputes Act with liberty to file a fresh case on the same cause of action. In this background, on a perusal of the statements of facts made in the application filed by the respondent no. 1, the authority rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner that the application ought to have been dismissed as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The order passed by the authority on 4th May, 2011 appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction Shri Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner should not be made liable to pay interest from the date of filing of the application as the respondent no. 1 had delayed the matter. Shri Kalbande, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, states that the respondent no. 1 would be satisfied if an amount of Rs.30,000/- is paid to the respondent no.1 towards unpaid wages and interest. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this court. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Hirekhan JUDGE