1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3356 OF 1991 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Executive Engineer Agriculture and construction Division No.4, Aurangabad 2 The Deputy Engineer, Agriculture and Construction Sub Division No.4, Nanded ...petitioners Versus Shri Ashok Kerba Bukte, Age 25 years, Occ. Service R/o. Udgir, Dist. Latur ...Respondent ..... Mr. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for the petitioners Mr. C.V. Dharurkar h/f Mr. S. V. Chillarge, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 4TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed in I.D. application No. 256 of 1986, dated 19.1.1990, by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Latur. 2 2 The brief facts of the case are as under;- The respondent herein filed claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act in the Labour Court, Latur stating therein that the respondent is working from 5.8.1981, on daily wages under construction division, as a Fitter operator. It was further stated in the complaint that the he was not paid the wages considering the nature of work performed by the him as also he is not designated as skilled worker. He is being paid wages @ Rs 11.70 paise. According to the respondent, he is entitled for the wages which are paid to the skilled workers. It was further case of the respondent before the court below that in spite of the repeated requests, he is not paid interim wages like skilled worker. The claim of the respondent came to be registered as I.D. application No. 256 of 1986. The petitioners herein filed pursis at Exh. C-7 on 17.9.1986 and it was stated in the said pursis that the demands made by the respondent regarding his claim are already considered and given to him. 3 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Latur recorded the statement of the respondent and on the basis of the said statement on oath has passed an order on 19.1.1990 directing the petitioners to pay the respondent the wages as skilled worker as per rates prevailing 3 form time to time since 5.8.1981 by deducing the amount actually paid to the respondent and thus granted I.D. application No. 256 of 1986, by judgment and order dated 19.9.1990. Hence, this writ petition. 3 Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State submitted that the pursis at Exh. C-7 was filed on behalf of the petitioners, were without instructions from the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent was never working as skilled worker and he was employed on daily wages and an unskilled worker and he has rendered services as unskilled worker and paid the wages, as directed by the Government for unskilled worker. It is further submitted that the application under Section 33-C(2) i.e. demand raised by the respondent could have been considered and that reference for adjudication under section 10 was required to be sent to the proper authorities. Leaned A.G.P. invited my attention to the pleadings in the petition as also the grounds taken therein and submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4 I have heard learned A.G.P. at length. I have also perused the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour court in para 2 has recorded that in the present case although the time was granted the concerned A.G.P. but no written statement is filed. Only pursis is filed at Exh. C-7 dated 17.9.1986. As per this pursis, it is informed to the Court by A.G.P. that all demands of the applicant has 4 already been considered and given therefore, there is no purpose to proceed with the matter. 5 Mere perusal of the above mentioned paragraph would show that the Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners before the court below has by way of filing pursis asserted that no further adjudication of the matter is required since demand of the applicant as per the 1 to 4, are already considered and given. It is admitted position that no written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioners. In absence of any written statement other than pursis filed on behalf of the petitioners, the court below was not left with any other option but to decide the case in the light of the pursis filed by the Government Pleader. 6 It appears that on perusal of reasons recorded by the court below, would clearly appears that the lower court has properly considered the statement of claim and pursis filed by the petitioners herein and passed the impugned judgment and order thereby directing the petitioners to pay the applicant the wages as skilled worker as per rates prevailing from time to time since 5.8.1981 by deducing the amount actually paid to the applicant. 5 The contention of the petitioners that the respondent was not skilled worker, has not been supported by the cogent evidence before 5 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Latur. On the contrary, the respondent asserted before the Labour Court that he is working as Fitter operator since 5.8.1981 and therefore, he deserves to be paid the wages, as paid to the skilled workers. Therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this court to adjudicate the issue whether the respondent is skilled worker or not. The Labour Court has accepted the case of the respondent that he is skilled worker. Nothing is brought on record by the petitioners to countenance the claim of the respondent that he is skilled worker. On the contrary, the pursis filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court itself indicates that the demand raised in the application by the respondent is considered and given to him. Writ petition is devoid of any merits. Rule discharged. Writ petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ( S.S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/