: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2847 OF 2008 Kausar Auto Services ....Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra Engineering Plastics . & General Kamgar Union & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.K.P. Anil Kumar for the Petitioner. Ms.Rita Joshi for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Tribunal revising the pay scale and various other benefits including as regards leave, leave travelling allowance, uniforms, house rent allowance and loans in respect of the employees of the Petitioner. The benefits pertaining to the basic wages and dearness allowance have been ordered to be granted prospectively. 2. There is nothing in the impugned award which indicates that any of the established principles of law have not been followed. The Industrial Tribunal has considered the evidence produced by the parties, analysed the same and come to a conclusion which : 2 : warrants no interference. 3. The Industrial Tribunal has applied the region-cum-industry formula. The Respondents relied upon the memorandum of settlement signed in respect of another service centre with the union. The evidence does not indicate that there is no comparison between the two concerns. 4. On the question whether the Petitioner has the financial capacity to meet the enhanced requirements, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner’s witnesses were unable to indicate that the Petitioner was unable to meet the additional burden. It is important to note that in the written statement, the Petitioner expressly averred that it is willing to produce its balance-sheet and profit and loss account. The same was called for by the Respondents including by making an application in respect thereof. An order was passed directing the Petitioner to produce the same. Despite the same, it was not produced. The Industrial Tribunal was therefore, justified in drawing an adverse inference against the Petitioner. Added to this is the fact that there was no effective cross-examination of the Respondents witnesses, who deposed about the financial capacity of the Petitioner. : 3 : 5. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner would be unable to meet the additional financial burden. 6. The Petitioner had contended that there was a settlement, which was still in existence. Apart from what is stated in the impugned order, I find that there is no evidence regarding the settlement being binding on the Respondents. The Petitioner’s witness stated that he did not know if the union and the first party therein had signed any settlement. In the cross-examination,he stated that he was illiterate and could not say anything about any agreement on record. He was not a member of the Respondent’s union. 7. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed.