1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.90 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION 118 OF 2011 Incab Industries Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Shankar Balwant Ghodke .. Respondent. Mr.D.J.Bhange for the appellant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : MAY 2, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8073 of 2010 whereby the petition has been rejected and the order passed by the Labour Court dated 26th February, 2010 has been confirmed. The respondent-workmen had filed application (IDA) No.54 of 2004 under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge after having perused the entire record and appreciating the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, recorded a categoric finding that the respondent – workmen has not been paid the salary which he was entitled from July 2002 to August, 2003. Mr.Bhange, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter is pending before the BIFR, their revival proposal is under S 2 consideration. He further submitted that the Union, representing the workmen, had agreed that from March 2003 the workmen would be entitled for Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Single Judge has considered the similar submission in proper perspective and has rightly observed that there is no agreement as per the provisions under section 2 (P) read with section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance is also placed on the meeting held on 24th March, 2003 by the learned counsel for the appellant which, in our opinion, would not help the appellant to contend that the respondent-workman is not entitled to full salary from July 2002 to August 2003. No case for interference is made out. Hence the letters patent appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. (U.D.SALVI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)