1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 813 OF 2009 Mahananda Dairy, Latur Unit Maharashtra State Co-operative Milk Unit MIDC Plot no. 117-122 Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. Through its Manager Arun s/o Genuji Ghodke age 50 years, occ. service r/o Gaganvihar, Vishalnagar Latur, Dist. Latur. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Vitthal s/o Shankarrao Shendre age 54 years, occ. service r/o Mahananda Area MIDC Latur, Dist. Latur. .. RESPONDENT Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Kadam, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th November, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Respondent herein presented an application under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 claiming monetary benefits from the employer. It is the contention of the applicant before the labour court that he has worked over time with the employer, however, he has not been paid the wages for the over time work which he has attained. Applicant thus claims total amount of Rs.1,38,414/- from the employer. After presentation of the complaint, respondent caused appearance, however, has not presented written statement and the matter was allowed to proceed ex- parte. After considering the contentions of the petitioner, trial court allowed the application and directed the employer to pay monetary benefits to the employee. 4 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner employer that infact there is no policy in respect of payment of overtime allowance to the employees in the establishment. It is contended that infact the employee is not entitled for any amount. It is contended that because of certain administrative lapses, the matter remained unattended and the employer 3 needs to be extended an opportunity for submitting his case before the trial court. 5 Considering all the relevant facts, I am of the opinion that the employer needs to be extended further opportunity to submit his contention before the labour court. However, as the employee is poor and is required to prosecute the litigation right from 2001 onwards, he is put to hardship by directing to appear before the labour court and prosecute the litigation. In these circumstances, the employer needs to be put to certain condition while remitting the matter back to the labour court. The employer needs to be directed to deposit Rs.40,000/- in this court. The employer shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the employee. Thus, the petition is allowed. Order passed by the trial court on 15-9-2008 in IDA no. 9/2006 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back for re-consideration to the trial court. Learned Judge of the labour court shall after extending an opportunity of hearing to both the parties concerned shall decide the application afresh. Petitioner herein is directed to deposit amount of Rs.40,000/- in the labour court within six weeks from today. Petitioner shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the employee within six weeks from today. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Deposit of amount by the employer with the trial court shall be 4 subject to final out come of the dispute. Considering the long standing pendency of the dispute, the labour court is directed to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from today. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp813.09.odt