1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5524 OF 2001 Shri Narullakhan Sikanderkhan .... Petitioner vs 1 M/s. Modistone Ltd. 2 The Official Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai .... Respondents Mr. Neel Helekar for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Bhagwat, for respondent no.2/Official Liquidator. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 6th May, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14.09.2001 whereby the Industrial Court, has allowed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act (the Act) and thereby quashed the Order dated 30-11.1998 in Complaint (ULP) No.115 of 1995. The operative part of the Labour Court Order is as under: “1 It is declared that respondents have engaged in unfair labour practices as alleged and therefore the respondents are directed to cease and deposit from engaging in such unfair labour practice forthwith. 2 Respondents are directed to pay either lumpsum wages for 14 months to the complainant within a month OR extract work from the complainant for 14 months and pay the wages on every month regularly. 3 There is no order as to costs.” 2 The respondent/complainant by letter dated 07.07.1994 intimated the 2 petitioner that his date of birth on record is 31.12.1994. The petitioner, therefore, immediately made representation on 29.09.1994 along with the supporting documents i.e. School Leaving Certificate and Passport. These two documents were neither in dispute nor its contents. 3 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mumbai, therefore, relying on these documents, though there were some admissions made contrary to those documents and passed the above order which, in my view, ought not to have interfered with by the Revisional Court under Section 44 of the Act by re- appreciating the same by giving importance to the oral admissions so recorded and by overlooking these two documents totally on the foundation that those documents were there at later stage of the proceeding. The respondent/management, as recorded, intimated the retirement date at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the supporting material so placed on record immediately and definitely prior to 31.12.1994 ought to have been considered. It is not the case of submitting application at fag end of the service career by the petitioner. This, on the contrary, where the case of employer/management intimated the wrong date of birth at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner. Therefore the principle, in any way, is in- applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case that of having moved for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career. 4 The scope of Section 44 of the Act is very limited. The learned Industrial Court, in view of above, wrongly appreciated the available material on record and basically those two documents, the existence and/or validity of which were never raised or disputed at any stage. Therefore, based upon the order passed by the 3 Labour Court, as recorded above, is well within the frame work of law and the record ought not to have interfered with by the Industrial Court. 5 Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.09.2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai is quashed and set aside. The order dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Labour Court is restored. 6 It is clear from the record that the Company is in liquidation and an Official Liquidator has been appointed and he is incharge of the property/assets of the company. The statement is also made that the Company before liquidation has deposited the amount pursuance to the impugned order by the Industrial Court at Mumbai, at the time of admission of the Revision as a condition precedent. The amount is still lying there. In view of above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount with interest, if any accrued. 7 It is made clear that the amount so deposited specifically by the company at the relevant time, pursuance to the order passed by the Industrial Court is towards the back wages as ordered by the Presiding Officer in a litigation between the parties. Therefore, I see there is no reason to not to release this amount in favour of the petitioner. 8 Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a). Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 9 The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator/respondent seeks stay of this order for a period of three weeks. This order is stayed for three weeks only as it is a reversal order. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)