1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.7728 of 2007 Dilipseth Jayantilal Jain Petitioner Vs. Ramashray Hiralal Nishad & anr. Respondents Mr.Vasant J. Amberkar for petitioner. Mr.Amol Mhatre for resp.no.1. Mr.Rahul Oak for resp.no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. January 14, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Amberkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent no.1 claimed that he was working as a weaver in the firm run by the petitioner and respondent no.2 and for his grievance for recovery of overtime wages he filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 before the Labour Court at Thane. The said application came to be registered as Application (IDA) No.381 of 2001. The applicant - present respondent no.1 claimed recovery of Rs.1,64,345/-. 2. On notice all the three opponents appeared but no reply was filed by opponent no.1, whereas opponent nos.2 and 3 filed reply and opposed the application. The opponent no.2 - present petitioner claimed that 2 he was not running any manufacturing business along with opponent nos.1 and 3 and he had no concern with any other business activity carried out by opponent nos.1 and 3. he also denied any employer - employee relationship between the applicant and himself. Opponent no.1 did not file any reply and, therefore, as per the order dated 7/7/2003 the application proceeded without W.S. The opponent no.3 filed a reply and claimed that the application was not maintainable as there was no employer - employee relationship between the applicant and him. He admitted that he was the owner of the premises mentioned in the application and it was purchased by him on 20/9/1998. He also admitted that he engaged 15 employees in the manufacture of textile products and contended that the applicant was never employed by him. 3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court considered the rival contentions as well as the evidence adduced by both the parties and allowed the application by the impugned judgment and order dated 16/2/2007 directing the opponents to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,700/- towards overtime wages and an amount of Rs.9,125/- towards leave wages. The opponent nos.2 3 and 3 have been directed to pay the said amount to the applicant within two months. 4. Petitioner - opponent no.2 had filed an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief before the Labour Court and denied any business relationship with his brother - opponent no.3 and also contended that the applicant was an alien and he was not employed at any time in any business activities carried out by the petitioner. In his cross=examination the petitioner admitted that the letter dated 24/9/2001 was given to the union and it was issued on behalf of Dilip Textile. He further admitted that he was the signatory to the said letter. He was shown another stamp of 19/8/1998 which bore his signature and it was a document presented with the Tahsildar for registering the factory i.e. Dilip Textile. In addition Complaint (ULP) No.398 of 2001 was also shown to him and he was one of the respondents in the said complaint which was filed by the respondent no.1 - applicant. Beyond this there was no contest by the present petitioner to the application field for recovery of overtime wages as well as leave wages. 4 5. The Labour Court has considered the evidence of the opponent no.3 who had stated that he was the owner of the firm and opponent no.2 - the present petitioner is his brother. he admitted that the electric meter was installed in the name of Shri Ganpat Taware and the factory was purchased from the said Shri Taware. He further admitted that there were twenty rooms and two kandi machines in the factory. He also admitted that he had not obtained any licence under the Shops and Establishments Act. he further admitted that the factory was working for 16 hours and that the applicant had filed the complaint of unfair labour practice against him. This evidence before the Labour Court went to show that the textile manufacturing firm in which the applicant was working was a joint venture of opponent nos.2 and 3 who are the brothers and perhaps it was a family business. The opponent no.2 - present petitioner was equally responsible for the day-to-day activities. 6. Hence there is no merit in the challenge raised in this petition against the order passed by the Labour Court on 16/2/2007 and on the limited ground that the petitioner - opponent no.2 had no 5 concern with Dilip Textiles. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL