1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5324 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. WRIT PETITION NO.:5324 OF 2011 *** Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner VERSUS Shaharpalikar Kamgar Union Through Its President *** Mr. Shah Subodh P., Advocate for Petitioner *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. It appe3ars that in 1985 Complaint (ULP) No.254 of 1985 was filed by the Respondent before the Industrial Court seeking permanency benefits in respect of 63 members/ labourers who had completed 240 days of continuous service. On 18th September, 1987 complaint was allowed. The Petitioner herein was directed to grant permanency benefits and other incidental benefits to 63 labourers from 11th June, 19085 to 12th June, 1986. 2. On 16th January, 1988 the Corporation in 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5324 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. execution of the orders of the learned Member, Industrial Court conferred the benefits. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 11,02,185/- was paid by the Petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the audit carried out by the Auditors for the years 1987-1989 the objection was raised about the excess payment wrongly made by the petitioner in pursuant to the execution of the orders in Complaint (ULP) No.254 of 1985. The objection was as to payment of Rs. 4,12,000/- and the Auditor made recommendation for the recovery of excess amount. It is the case of the petitioner that the report provides that the payment was made to the labourers for the days on which they were absent from work. On 26th February, 1999 complaint was filed by the Respondent before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice and praying for prohibitory 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5324 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. orders from recovery of the amount as per the audit report. The Industrial Court allowed the said complaint. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount which was paid to the members of the Respondent union was by mistake though they did not work on the particular days. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the writ petition and submitted that this petition may be allowed. 4. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, in my opinion, interference in the impugned judgment and order is not warranted. There is no any mistake or any excess claim by the Respondent, if at all it is the mistake of the petitioner to make excess payment to the Respondent. All the aspects have been considered by the Court below and reasonable and possible view has been taken by the 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5324 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. Industrial Court. No case is made out to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition stands rejected. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] Dated:03/10/2011. ans/5324