1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.474/2008 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 22.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RK Jain,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The non-petitioner-workman succeeded in getting the award against the petitioner from the Labour Court, Bhilwara as back as on 18th Nov., 2005 in labour case no.187/99. The labour court awarded 50% of the back wages also w.e.f. 1st Dec., 1998. The petitioner-employer challenged the said award by preferring writ petition no.2641/2006 before this Court wherein this Court directed the petitioner to make payment of wages to the respondent-workman month by month in accordance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). Despite above,when the benefits under the award was not given to the respondent-workman then he submitted petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. In the said petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, the petitioner-employer submitted reply to the application admitting the award and its challenge to the award by the petitioner and further 2 that the award has not been stayed by the High Court, but order has been passed to make payment according to Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. The non- petitioner-employee submitted complete calculation how he is demanding the quantified amount against the petitioner-employer. To that effect only contention of the petitioner in the reply is that calculation submitted by the non-petitioner-employee has no legal basis. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner-employer did not disclose how the calculation made by the employee is not in accordance with law. A bald denial was there. The said denial was rejected by the labour court vide order dated 20.8.2007, hence,this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned labour court has not inquired into the matter and did not decide what is the actual amount due and the learned labour court could not have proceeded to execute the award when the matter is pending before this Court. It is apparent from the copy of the reply submitted alongwith this writ petition that the employer did not dispute the quantum and calculation made by the employee-non-petitioner specifically. It appears that employer is playing game of hide and seek only and raised objection that the calculation made by the non-petitioner-employee is not in 3 accordance with law without disclosing what amount under the award was due in the employer and what has been paid and how the calculation is wrong. In this situation, I do not find any case was out for further inquiry before the labour court. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-