1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2008 (M/s. Vidarbha Luiquor Traders vs. Narayan Bajirao Kumare ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 01, 2008. Heard Shri Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner – employer and Shri Naukarkar, learned counsel for the respondent. The Labour Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2006, while declaring that termination of services of present respondent with effect from 6.5.2002 is illegal and constitutes unfair labour practice, granted relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages from 6.5.2002 to 30.11.2007 to present respondent. The employer filed revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and in revision, the respondent stated that if absorption of the respondent is not possible unless somebody else is required to be removed, he was ready and willing to accept compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Industrial Court has granted 2 compensation in lieu of reinstatement and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for that purpose. This exercise of Industrial Court is not in dispute before me. The contention before me is in relation to other relief which is given by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has held that 50% of back wages are to be calculated at average rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from 6.5.2002 till 30.11.2007. The contention of the petitioner is that the salary were never paid @ Rs.2,000/- per month to present respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the employment was in shop i.e. in Scheduled Industry and as such, the Industrial Court has rightly taken into account the minimum rate of wages. Shri Ghate, learned counsel points out that complaint itself discloses that at the time of his termination, the respondent was being paid @ Rs.1,650/- per month. The fact remains that the employment of the present respondent was in scheduled Establishment. Minimum Wages are, therefore, prescribed and it has not been demonstrated that rate sanctioned by the Industrial Court is in excess of the said rate of Minimum Wages. Thus, as a part of 3 arrangement, while accepting the offer of respondent for compensation, the Industrial Court has in its discretion while awarding Rs.25,00/- has also granted 50% of back wages calculated at the average rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from 6.5.2002 till 30.11.2007. I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the approach of the Industrial court. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court. JUDGE *GS.