: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8217 OF 2009 Laxman Dattatraya Velhal .. Petitioner V/s. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ratnagiri .. Respondent Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. Mr. G.H. Hegde i/b. Hegde & Associates for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 24 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Writ Petition challenges the order dated 26th June, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Ratnagiri, in Application (IDA) No.26 of 2006. By this order the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The petitioner was employed as a ‘Driver’ with the respondent-Corporation. While on duty, he proceeded on medical leave. After several examinations by the Civil Surgeon, Ratnagiri, a : 2 : Certificate was issued to the petitioner recommending that he should undertake light work rather than the stressfull job of a ‘Driver’. Since the respondent-Corporation did not either terminate the petitioner’s services or allow him to join his duties, the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2003 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. The Industrial Court after noting the provisions of the Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995, directed that an alternate job should be given to the petitioner and he be paid wages. 3. The petitioner was then appointed as a ‘Peon’ from 25th July, 2007. According to him the respondent-Corporation has not paid him wages as payable under the order of the Industrial Court in the aforesaid complaint. He, therefore, filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that he is entitled to certain monetary benefits. That application has been rejected by the Labour Court on considering the order of the Industrial Court. : 3 : 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Topkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the Industrial Court while directing that the petitioner be provided with an alternate job had further directed that his pay as a ‘Driver’ should be protected and that he should be reemployed together with his full wages. The Labour Court on the other hand has interpreted the order to mean that the petitioner would be entitled to protection of his pay as a ‘Driver’ on reemployment as a ‘Peon’ and that he would be entitled to further increments in the wage scale applicable to a ‘Peon’. 5. The operative part of the order dated 2nd January, 2007, passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, reads as under :- ”3- izfroknhyk vlk vkns’k dj.;kr ;srks dh] rdzkjnkjkps dk;nsf’kj osru laj{khr d#u R;kyk laiw.kZ ixkjklg Rojhr i;kZ;h inkoj dkekoj ?;kos-” : 4 : 6. Mr. Hegade, the learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation, has produced on record a Settlement/Agreement which has been arrived at with the recognized Union of the S.T. in which Demand No.29 which deals with the cases of the present nature indicates that only the basic pay of the petitioner can be protected and he would be entitled to the pay scale applicable to a ‘Peon’. Mr. Topkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, points out that this agreement or settlement was not produced before the Labour Court. He also contends that the interpretation of the Industrial Court’s order by the Labour Court is incorrect and, therefore the matter be remanded to the Labour Court. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Labour Court to consider whether the term ‘Sampurna Pagarasaha’ would mean ‘with full back wages’ as contended by Mr. Topkar and whether the petitioner would be entitled to wages as a ‘Driver’ or as a : 5 : ‘Peon’ and increments in the scale applicable to a ‘Driver’ or a ‘Peon’. 8. Accordingly, the following order is passed :- “O R D E R” (i). The Application (IDA) No.26 of 2006 is remanded to the Labour Court, Ratnagiri, for considering it afresh. (ii). The parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Ratnagiri, on 19th July, 2010 at 11:00 A.M. (iii). The Labour Court, Ratnagiri, shall permit the applicant to amend the application, if necessary. The respondent may then file an amended written statement. : 6 : (iv). The parties are permitted to lead additional evidence. (v). The application shall be disposed of within six months from today. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions.