:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1506 OF 2008 Shri Ramesh Ragho patil ..Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, Business Combine Ltd. and anr. .. Respondents Mr. M.S. Karnik and Mr. Sachin Gite for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 10, 2008. Date : March 10, 2008. Date : March 10, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the recovery award passed by the Labour Court at Nasik on 17/12/2007 in Application (IDA) No. 9 of 2006 filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The petitioner had raised dispute for his illegal termination of service from 19/11/1995 and the same was referred for adjudication in Reference (IDA) No. 30 of 1996 which was allowed by the Labour Court :2: on 16/12/2003 directing reinstatement in service with 50% backwages at the rate of last drawn salary for the period from 19/11/1995 to 16/12/2003. For the execution of the said award the petitioner approached the Labour Court in Application (IDA) No. 9 of 2006 and the same has been partly allowed. As per the petitioner he was entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,40,500/- towards 50% of backwages, Rs.1,61,820/- towards gratuity and compensation and Rs.42,176/- towards leave wages, thus making a total of Rs.4,58,926/-. The employer filed its reply and pointed out that the claim made by the petitioner was misconceived and as per the employer the arrears of wages (50% at the rate of last drawn salary) came to Rs.2,02,766, compensation at the rate of 15 days wages came to Rs.62,711/- and by way of gratuity the amount payable to the applicant came to Rs.47,775/-, thus making a total of Rs.3,13,252/-. During the pendency of the application the respondent made an application before the Labour Court seeking leave to deposit the said amount of Rs.3,13,252/- which was allowed. Subsequently the petitioner-workman was allowed to withdraw the said deposit amount as well. The Labour :3: Court held that the amount calculated and deposited by the employer was the only amount payable to the petitioner and his claim for Rs.4,58,926/- was not upheld. 3. In his application as well as the affidavit filed by him by way of examination-in-chief the applicant did not state his monthly wages or its record. At the fag end of the proceedings when he submitted his written arguments, he claimed that he was getting Rs.4,225/- per month as his wages for 26 days. There was no supporting document to hold that the applicant was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4225/-. On the other hand, the employer came out with a case that the workman’s last drawn wages were Rs.4,180.74 per month and that was the salary drawn on 19/11/1995 i.e. on the date of termination. It appears that the workman claimed that the term "last drawn salary" means the salary payable to him on 16/12/2003. This contention has been rejected by the Labour Court by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel (AIR 1998 SC 511) and rightly so. The :4: petitioner had also claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum and this was turned down by the Labour Court holding that in an application for execution of the award filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court does not have power to grant interest and in support of this, the learned Judge relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Payal Electronics vs. Arun Vasant Pawar and anr. [2002 III CLR 328]. 4. Thus the reasoning set out by the Labour Court in holding that the total amount payable to the petitioner - workman was Rs.3,13,252/- in execution of the award passed in Reference (IDA) No. 30 of 1996 cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Hence, petition is rejected summarily. :5: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)