1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3999 OF 2009 Shree Dattatraya Huappa Parit & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.M.A. Khan i/b. Mr.R.R. Karekar for the Petitioners. Mr.A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.K.S. Bapat i/b. M/s.Desai & Desai Associates for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 7, 2009 P.C. :- 1 By this petition, the petitioners are challenging judgment and order dated 28th November, 2008 passed by the Industrial Court in Misc. Application (ULP) No.18/2006. By the said judgment and order, the Industrial Court was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners 2 herein for condonation of delay after coming to the conclusion that the main application was not maintainable before the Industrial Court. Brief facts are as under :- 2 The petitioners  workmen were dismissed by the respondent company and therefore, they filed the complaint in the Labour Court challenging the order of termination. The Labour Court, however, dismissed the complaint. A Revision application, therefore, was filed before the Industrial Court. In the meantime, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and consent terms were filed by both the parties before the Lok Adalat. It is an admitted position that before the revision application was filed, the petitioners herein had resigned from the company. 3 Thereafter, the petitioners filed Misc. Application (ULP) No.18/2006 before the Industrial Court. The respondent company resisted the said application and it was urged that the said 3 application was not maintainable under 50 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Court framed two issues :- 1.Does the Applicants prove that the delay caused in filing the present application deserves to be condoned? 2.Does the Applicants prove that the application filed by the Applicants is not maintainable? 4 The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable and on that ground, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. 5 Mr.Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Industrial Court had erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay on merits by holding that the main application itself was not maintainable. He submitted that no reasons had been assigned by the 4 Industrial Court for not condoning the delay. He further submitted that it was open for the Industrial Court to calculate the amount which was due and payable while entertaining an application under Section 50 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6 Shri Bapat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, on the other hand, submitted that the Industrial Court had framed two specific issues and had answered the issue of maintainability in favour of the respondent company and as such, condonation of delay was not answered since the Industrial court had come to the conclusion that the main application itself was not maintainable. 7 In my view, there is much substance in the submission made by the company. In the application for execution which is filed under Section 50, the petitioners had claimed wages from 1991 onwards and had accordingly, calculated gratuity and other 5 benefits. Perusal of the Consent Terms indicates that there was no such clause in the Consent Terms for demand of wages from 1991. By the time, the Consent Terms were filed, it is an admitted position that the petitioners had resigned from their job and therefore, in order to give benefit of gratuity and provident fund, in clause 1, it is stated that they would not claim wages from July 1991 to April 2000 but they would be treated as if they are under continuous service for the purpose of gratuity and provident fund. Accordingly, gratuity and provident fund already has been paid to the petitioners. In the said consent terms, it is never mentioned that if the said amount is not paid within a period of six months, they would be entitled to get wages from July 1991 to April 2000. Therefore, the basis on which the application for execution was filed under Section 50 of the Industrial Disputes Act itself was misconceived and therefore, the Industrial Court has rightly held that such an application was not maintainable under Section 50 of the said Act. There 6 is, therefore, no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. 8 The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)