1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4115/2009 ( APMC -: versus :- Murlidhar S. Sarodkar ) 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. DATED : NOVEMBER 06, 2009. Heard Shri G.G. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners. He states that employer raised defence under section 33 C(2) application, that employee was absent and therefore was not entitled to salary. Labour Court upon verification of each muster fund the claim to be incorrect and granted salary for days on which the employee was present. According to Shri Mishra, such an exercise was open and he places reliance upon the judgment reported at 2007 [1] Mh.L.J. 246 (Getwell Board and Paper Pvt .vrs. Fakruddin S. Lokhandwala and another). It is to be noted that, here the employer has falsely contended that employee was absent and this fact is noticed by the Labour Court while examining the muster roll produced before it. It cannot be said that therefore, there was any dispute, which needed adjudication independently. The judgment relied upon, therefore, has no relevance in the matter. 2 Labour Court has directed wages only for days on which the employee is shown present in muster. If employer wanted to deny salary for said period, it should have produced and proved an order to that effect. Writ Petition is therefore, misconceived, the same is therefore dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.