1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2008 M/s.Polyster Synthetics Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Pandurang Shedge .. Respondent Mr.R.G.Jagtap for petitioner Ms.Rita Joshi for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd April 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Jagtap for petitioner and learned Advocate for respondent. Perused the order of the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court on an application (IDA) No.359 of 2000. 2. Respondent had applied under section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947 for benefits such 2 as over time wages, difference in the salary and bonus amount. The basic facts are not in dispute inasmuch as respondent was an employee working as Peon with the petitioner. His last drawn salary was Rs.1775/- per month. The learned Presiding Officer has referred to the claim and the bifurcation has been set out in Annexure A to the claim Application itself. The same has been referred to and set out with all details in the impugned award. 3. Mr.Jagtap would urge that the impugned Award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and is vitiated by non application of mind. In his submission, respondent has himself stated in the deposition that he joined services on 15th April 1996. He did not join the petitioner company but joined one M/s.Industrial Electronics. In such circumstances, when the respondent workman himself states that he was taken on the role of petitioner on 1998, then, 3 all computations have to be on that basis and the final order cannot be said to be justified under any circumstances. On the own showing of the workman, he was not entitled to the sums on the basis that he has worked for three years. 4. It is not possible to accept any of these contentions. This is not a court of further appeal. It is not permissible for me to reappraise and reappreciate the materials in my limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, I am satisfied from a reading of the petition and the annexures, including the impugned award that the Presiding Officer was right in the conclusion that he has reached. The affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief of the respondent workman, claimant before the labour court, must be read as a whole. Once it is read as such, it is clear that all establishments were of the same management. He has given details as to how he 4 has worked and period of service rendered. He has also given a computation. This is a matter where there was no dispute so that an adjudication must take place. This is a clear case where the request was to compute and calculate the benefits and award the same. Precisely, that has been done. If one peruses the deposition, copies of which are annexed to the petition, including that of the petitioner employer, it is clear that the same does not dispute the claim of the workman. In such circumstances, the learned Presiding Officer has rightly concluded that the claim is maintainable under section 33(c)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947. This is not a case where the employer had at any stage seriously disputed the claim. Further, the total amount awarded is Rs.46,468/-. 5. Considering the amount and the peculiar facts of this case, it is not necessary to interfere in writ jurisdiction. This is not a 5 fit case for exercising extra ordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with a just and fair computation of the claim by the Court below. More so, when the same is in consonance with the materials produced before it. Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)