3 1312wp4073.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4073 of 2011 (The Executive Engineer, PWD, Wardha, and another v. Smt. Vithabai Pandhari Awathare) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Ms K.R. Deshpande, AGP for Petitioners. Shri S.A. Kalbande, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 13 th December, 2011 1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 1-4-2009 passed by the Labour Court, Wardha, in the application, being IDA Case No.12 of 2006 filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming arrears of salary for the period from 1-9-2003 to 30-6-2005. The Labour Court has allowed the said application and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.32,995/- to the respondent. This is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 2. Undisputedly, in Reference IDA Case No.102 of 1995, an award was passed on 28-1-2003 directing reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages. The respondent submitted the joining reports on 24-3-2003, 28-3-2003 and 30-7-2003, but she was not allowed to join the duty. It is also not disputed that the 3 1312wp4073.11.odt respondent has been paid back wages up to 31-8-2003. 3. In the aforesaid background, the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed claiming arrears of salary for the period from 1-9-2003 to 30-6-2005, that is the date of filing of the application. Undisputedly, the respondent was not permitted to join the duty, although she submitted the joining reports on 24-3-2003, 28-3-2003 and 30-7-2003. This fact is admitted by the witness of the petitioners – Sudhir Khande – in his deposition at Exhibit 13. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that no reason is putforth for non-compliance of the award passed by it. It has, therefore, taken the view that the respondent was entitled to wages for the period from 1-9-2003 to 30-6-2005, quantified at Rs.32,995/-. 4. The only ground raised in this petition is that the judgment and order passed in Reference IDA Case No.102 of 1995 is challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition. However, the number of that writ petition is not given. There is no statement such such judgment and order passed in the said Reference IDA Case has been stayed by this Court in that writ petition. In view of this, no fault can be found in the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, holding that the respondent had pre-existing right, which can be enforced under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. The Labour Court shall permit the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners before the 3 1312wp4073.11.odt Labour Commissioner on 1-12-2009. Judge pdl