1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.246/1997 Punjaram Parasram Junghare and 9 Ors. ..vs.. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sadavarte, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Charpe, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 10 th November, 2008 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order made by Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Industrial Court having made a declaration in Complaint ULP No. 44/1980 for entitlement of the petitioners to the time scale benefits upon completion of 180 days, the application under Section 33C(2) was perfectly maintainable and was liable to be granted. 2. Per contra, Mr. Charpe learned counsel for the respondent, submits that no existing right was carved out by 2 the petitioners for maintaining the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Court which is sine qua non. The Industrial Court having refused to award arrears of wages in terms, this Court cannot, in the absence of challenge to the said judgment, interfere in the present writ petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..vs.. Premlal; JT 2007 (8) SC 430, finally set at rest the controversy, which was pending for long number of years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Bombay High Court. This has been done in the recent past and in the whole background, I find that the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefits if they are ultimately entitled to it under those judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since no existing right was spelt out, I hold that application under 3 Section 33C(2) filed by the petitioners was not maintainable because no existing right was carved out by the petitioners. Hence, I confirm the judgment made by the Labour Court. However, this Court as well as the Apex Court have taken a view resolving the controversy which was pending for a long number of years and hence on that ground I grant liberty to the petitioners to file proper proceedings in the appropriate Court for the reliefs claimed in the present matter on the basis of the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court of India. The respondent-MSRTC is entitled to resist such application if filed in accordance with law. The petitioners will have to prove their case in accordance with law before the Court. The petition is dismissed with liberty but with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale