1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 59 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3598 of 1998 (d) Motiram Mahadeorao Dhobale VERSUS Lokmat, Daily Published and two others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 29, 2011. Heard. The appellant claims to be the employee of the respondent no.1-Lokmat, a newspaper establishment and not the respondent no.2, who according to the appellant, is a fictitious company. Since, the appellant was not paid the benefits, which were payable under the Palekar Award and Bachawat Award, the appellant filed a Complaint before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court held that the appellant was an employee of the respondent no.1 and not the respondent no.2. The Industrial Court further held that the appellant was entitled to the benefits payable under the two afore-stated Awards from the date of filing of the complaint and not from 08/5/1984, as claimed by the appellant. The order 2 passed by the Industrial Court was challenged by the respondent no.1 before this Court and since, the respondent no.1 did not succeed, an appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent no.1 lost in the appeal before the Apex Court and the order passed by the Industrial Court was confirmed, as far as the respondent no.1 was concerned. The appellant had also filed a Writ Petition bearing W. P. No. 3598/1998 before this Court against the order passed by the Industrial Court, as the Industrial Court had denied the grant of monetary benefits to the appellant from the date of appointment on 08/5/1984 and had granted them from the date of filing of the complaint. The learned Single Judge, however, by the order dated 12/10/2010 held that the appellant was not entitled to the arrears or actual monetary benefits from 08/5/1984 till 11/4/1988, when the complaint was filed. The learned Single Judge, however, directed the respondent no.1 to fix the pay of the petitioner/ appellant in the proper pay-scale as per the relevant Award, on 08/5/1984. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of monetary benefits to the appellant for the period from 08/5/1984 till 11/4/1988. We do not find anything wrong with the order of the Industrial Court denying monetary benefits to the appellant from the date of his appointment on 08/5/1984 till the date of filing of the complaint on 11/4/1988. It is always in the discretion 3 of the Court to grant the benefits from the date from which they are claimed or from the date on which the application or complaint is filed before the appropriate authority. In this case, since the appellant had approached the Industrial Court, by filing the complaint on 11/4/1988, there was nothing wrong in denying the monetary benefits to the appellant from 08/5/1984 till 11/4/1988 and granting it to the appellant from the date of institution of the complaint. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs In case the respondent no.1 has not fixed the pay of the appellant in the appropriate pay-scale in terms of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 12/10/2010, the respondent no.1 should do so within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale