1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 269 OF 2009 ( M.S.R.T.C .vrs. Ambadas Ramkrushna Barghat) WRIT PETITION No. 4537 OF 2008 ( M.S.R.T.C .vrs. Kundlik Domaji Durge ) WRIT PETITION No. 4749 OF 2008 ( M.S.R.T.C .vrs. Baburao Chinduji Budhe) WRIT PETITION No. 986 OF 2009 ( M.S.R.T.C .vrs. Baban Ajabrao Kakade) WRIT PETITION No. 1363 OF 2009 ( M.S.R.T.C .vrs. Abdul Khalik) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 15 th APRIL, 2009 Since a common order passed by the Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur on 28.03.2007, on separate applications filed by the respondents under Section 33 [C][2] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is impugned by the petitioner in these Writ Petitions, the petitions are heard together, and are decided by this common order. The respondents to these Writ Petitions had filed separate applications before the Labour Court, Nagpur seeking 2 determination of the amounts of benefits of monetary claims of the respondents and also seeking a further direction to the petitioner to pay the amounts stipulated in each of the applications, to the respective applicants/respondents along with 12% interest on the same. According to the respondents, they were entitled to be brought on time scale after completion of 180 days of continuous service. However, the petitioner belatedly brought them on time scale. The respondents had challenged the action of the petitioner by filing separate complaints before the Industrial Court. The complaints filed by the respondents were allowed and the petitioner was directed to bring the respondents on time scale after completion of 180 days of continuous service, as per Clause 49 of the Settlement dated 25.04.1956. The orders passed by the Industrial Court were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were however dismissed by the High Court and the orders passed by the Industrial Court directing the petitioner to bring the respondents on time scale after completion of 180 days of continuous 3 service and to pay them monetary benefits was confirmed. The petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeals against the orders passed in the Writ Petitions. However, the same were dismissed. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, the respondents had moved the applications under section 33[C][2] of the 1947 Act. The petitioner had filed its reply to the applications and had opposed the claim of the respondents. It was stated by the petitioner in the reply that Clause 49 of the Settlement dated 25.04.1956 did not apply to the case of the respondents. All the applications were decided by the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur by a common order dated 28.03.2007 which is impugned in these Writ Petitions. Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the Labour Court, Nagpur was not justified in partly allowing the claims made by the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had raised a plea before the Labour Court that clause 49 of the Settlement of 1956 was not applicable to the case of the respondents and in those circumstances, the petitioner 4 had not proceeded to calculate the sum due and payable to the respondents in terms of clause 49 of the Settlement of the year 1956. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, sought for a remand of the matters to the Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur for a fresh decision on the applications under section 33 [C][2] on merits. The learned counsel for petitioner states that after the S.L.Ps., were dismissed and after the impugned orders were passed the petitioner has calculated the amount due and payable to the respondents and has paid the same to the respondents. Shri S.N. Dandekar, learned Counsel for respondents however, supported the order passed by the Labour Court on 28.03.2007 and submitted that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence before the Labour Court, though the Labour Court had granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead the same. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the Industrial Court in the earlier round of litigation had attained finality as the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner in all the cases were dismissed. In this background, 5 according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Labour Court was justified in considering the matter on merits, after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Labour Court rightly considered the fact that the respondents were entitled to the difference of pay, D.A., H.R.A., C.L.A. for the period mentioned in each of the applications. The learned Counsel for the respondents sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is necessary to note that the complaints filed by each of the respondents were allowed by the Industrial Court in the earlier round of litigation, and it was held by the Industrial Court that the respondents ought to have been brought on time scale after the completion of 180 days of continuous service in view of Clause 49 of the Settlement of 1956. The judgment passed by the Industrial Court in all the cases attained finality on the dismissal of the S.L.P’s., filed by the petitioner. The difference in pay, D.A., H.R.A. etc., was due and payable to the respondents in view of 6 the dismissal of the S.L.P., by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the amounts due and payable to the respondents in terms of the judgment passed by the Industrial Court was not paid to the respondents, the respondents filed separate applications claiming the difference in pay, H.R.A., D.A. etc., before the Labour Court. Ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner before the Labour Court to tender evidence, but, the petitioner failed to avail the same. The petitioner had also not produced any chart showing the calculations made by the petitioner so as to point out as to what amount was due and payable to the respondents, according to the petitioner. For the first time, the petitioner has produced a document at Annexure-E to show that a much lesser amount was due and payable to the respondents in each case. The document explains nothing. Even otherwise, it was necessary for the petitioner to avail an opportunity of tendering the evidence before the Labour Court, Nagpur in the proceedings under Section 33 [C] [2] of the Act of 1947, and there is no propriety on the part of the petitioner to seek a remand of the matter at 7 this stage, when the petitioner has not tendered any evidence before the Labour Court inspite of grant of opportunity granted to the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the Labour Court has not granted the entire claim made by the respondents. Considering the settled position of law the Labour Court has refused to grant interest to the respondents on the amounts due and payable to the respondents towards difference of wages, D.A., H.R.A. etc. The Labour Court has also has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent Chirag Haider, had admitted in his cross examination, that he retired from service in 1998 and hence granted his claim only to the extent of Rs.46,107/-. The Labour Court also refused to grant the claim of the respondents towards weekly off and earned leave, as according to the Labour Court, that claim could be considered at the time of retirement of the respondent. No fault can be found with the approach of the Labour Court, Nagpur in deciding the applications filed by the respondents under Section 33 [C] [2] of the Act of 1947. The impugned order shows that the Labour Court 8 had duly applied its mind to the facts of the case and the material on record before determining the amount payable to the respondents. No case has been made out by the petitioner for seeking interference with the orders passed by the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petitions are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd