1 15-wp-5249-2011.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5249 OF 2011 Jagdish Trading Company and Another .. Petitioners. V/s. Smt. Malan C. Devkare and Others .. Respondents. Mr. U. R. Mankapure, for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 8th AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 By this Petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Original Respondent challenges the order dated 18th March, 2011 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Sangli in Complaint (ULP) No.64 of 2006 directing Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,056.40 to each Respondents towards their difference of wages as calculated by the Respondent-Employee as per the Minimum Wages Act. 2 15-wp-5249-2011.sxw 3 Initially, the Respondent- Original Employees through their Union made a complaint to the competent authority. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Reference was made under Section 10(1) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said Reference was decided by the learned Member of Industrial Tribunal at Sangli, holding that the Petitioner are liable to pay the difference of minimum wages to the Respondent- workers within three months from the date of the Award. As the Petitioner failed to comply with the said Award dated 8th December, 2005, the Respondent- Original Complainant filed Complaint bearing no. 64 of 2006 in the Industrial Court at Sangli under Section 28 of Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV. In the said complaint, the Respondent filed the statement of difference of minimum wages as Awarded by the Industrial Court as per Award dated 8th December, 2005. As per the said statement, Respondents are entitled for the sum of Rs.4,15,612.20. On the basis of this calculation, the learned Member of the Industrial Court directed Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,056.40 to each Respondents within a period of three months. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Industrial Court erred in calculating the differences of wages payable to the Respondent as per order dated 8th December, 2005 in Reference (IT) No. 5 of 1996. 3 15-wp-5249-2011.sxw 5 It is to be noted that in the present case, initially, the Respondent through their union preferred Reference (ID) No.5 of 1996. The said Reference was decided by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Sangli by Award dated 5th December, 2005 and held that Respondents were entitled for difference of wages to be calculated as per Minimum Wages Act. Operative part of the said order read thus:- (i) The Reference is partly allowed. (ii) It is hereby declared that the workers of Party No.1 shall get wages as per the Minimum Wages declared for Zone-2 under Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra from time to time under Minimum Wages Act on and after 6/12/1996. (iii) The workers of Party No.1 shall also get corresponding Special Allowance declared by the Government of Maharashtra on and after 6/12/1996. (iv) The workers of Party No.1 shall get the difference of wages as above with effect from 1/6/1996. (v) The First Party shall pay the difference of wages to its workers within the period of 3 months from the date of publication of Award. (vi) Rest of the demands made under Reference are hereby rejected. (vii) Parties to bear their own costs. (viii) Award be drawn up accordingly. 6 As the Petitioner failed to make the payment according to the said Award dated 8th December, 2005, they preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 4 15-wp-5249-2011.sxw 64 of 2007, claiming total sum of Rs.4,15,612.20. The Respondent in their complaint stated that the said difference is calculated by them as per the Minimum Wages Act. The Petitioner has not shown even before this Court, how the calculation of the amount due was wrong and what is the correct calculations. Therefore, no interference is called for in the amount which the Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner to pay to the Respondents. Hence, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.K.TATED, J.)