1 W.P.No.1828.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1828 OF 2010 M/s. Permanent Magnets Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Mahipat Yadav ... Respondent Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Gehani for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 19TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 1st August, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By this order, the Labour Court held that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,08,340/- to the respondent-workman as the difference in wages from 1988 till 2003. An amount of Rs.50,675/- was directed to be paid as bonus for the aforesaid period. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded from 20.5.1987. 2 W.P.No.1828.10 2. The Labour Court has rightly held that an application under Section 33-C(2) was maintainable for claiming the dues in the back wages payable to the respondent-workman. He had obtained an order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages on 11.10.1999 in Revision Application No.31 of 1999. Since this order was not complied, the respondent-workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in which he alleged that the dues in back wages are not paid to him. 3. The Labour Court has considered that the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and held that the application was maintainable. The Court observed that the application was filed only for minimum wages and not for the wages under the Settlement dated 31.3.2004. Therefore, the Court has directed the payment of this difference in wages. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that such dues could not have been claimed under Section 33-C(2) is unsustainable. Every workman is entitled to minimum wages. Therefore, the Labour Court has computed the difference in the minimum wages payable and the wages paid. In my opinion, it has not violated the provisions of Section 33-C(2) or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Labour Court found that the 3 W.P.No.1828.10 bonus for the aforesaid period was not paid by the petitioner and has directed it to pay the same. This application was disposed of on 1.8.2009. The company challenged the application by filing the Writ Petition No.7533 of 2009. By consent, the matter was remanded to the Labour Court only on the point of maintainability of the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was not remanded on all other issues. Accordingly, the Labour Court has answered the issue and has found that it has jurisdiction to decide the same under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. In my view, therefore, the only limited issue which arises in this Writ Petition is that it has been filed only against the order dated 25.1.2010. This order is the one in which the Labour Court has decided that it has jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. In my view, the order of the Labour Court is not erroneous. There can be no dispute that the difference in wages can be claimed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if it is shown by the workman that he is entitled to the benefit of those wages. 4 W.P.No.1828.10 6. The Writ Petition is rejected. 7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner requests for stay of this order. Stay refused. .....