16.wp.781-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.781 OF 2010 M/s. Pearl Frieght Service Pvt. ltd., through M/s. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd at Bhendkhal, District Raigad. ..Petitioner. Versus Dr.Arvind Patil. Dy.Labour Commissioner/ President of the Board Constituted under Mathadi Hamal & Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.J.S. Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Burhan V. Bukhari, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.V.A. Sonpal, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner by this Petition challenges wage fixation done by the Mathadi Board. Before doing wage fixation, the Mathadi Board has published notice calling upon the petitioner’s objection in writing within seven days from the 16.wp.781-10 2 date of notice. Admittedly, the notice was received by the petitioner. No objection in writing was raised. The Mathadi Board thereafter fixed the rate after considering whatever may be the relevant circumstances. Previously, the Mathadi Hamals were getting less than Rs.3000/- per month. The net result is that even after refixation of the wages the Mathadi Hamals are getting an amount which will be below Rs.6000/- per month. In our opinion, failure of the petitioner to raise any objection which was called, disentitles the petitioner to any relief from this Court. According to the petitioner there is an agreement and the wages as fixed are contrary to that agreement. If that is so, it was for the petitioner to raise objection which was called for by the Mathadi Board. In our opinion, the very fact that even after increase in the wages, the Mathadi Hamals are getting an amount which is less than Rs.6000/- per month and considering the present economic situation, it cannot be said that fixing of wages which are less than Rs.6000/- per month is in any way excessive or unreasonable. In our 16.wp.781-10 3 opinion, this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)