WP-5780 & 5781-2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5780 OF 2010 Modi Rubber Ltd., Mumbai ..Petitioner V/s. T. Gopalkrishnan & Anr. ..Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5781 OF 2010 Modi Rubber Ltd., Mumbai ..Petitioner V/s. Jitendra K. Tiwari & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. K.S. Bapat i/b. Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.M. Pendse for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed against the orders passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai on 27th November, 2009 in Application (IDA) Nos.268 of 2002 and 267 of 2002, respectively. By these orders passed on the applications filed under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the WP-5780 & 5781-2010 2 Labour Court has granted the respondents the following reliefs : “(a).Difference in basic pay including the D.A. Payable; (b). Difference in House Rent Allowance; (c). Leave Salary.” . This decision of the Labour Court is based on the fact that the aforesaid amounts have been considered by him as part and parcel of back-wages payable to the respondents. The respondents have been terminated from the services. They succeeded in challenging that termination by filing Complaints before the Labour Court. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondents with full back-wages. Although the respondents were reinstated and paid certain amounts, according to the respondents, the entire amount of back-wages was not paid to them and therefore they preferred the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. WP-5780 & 5781-2010 3 2. Mr. Bapat, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, takes exception to the order passed by the Labour Court. He contends that the order does not reflect the contentions raised by the petitioner for opposing the application filed by the respondents-workmen. He submits that there is no consideration at all by the Labour Court of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the written statement as well as in the evidence led before it. He further submits that the Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the respondents-workmen had conceded that they were being paid wages on a consolidated basis as the contents of their appointment letters showed that they were entitled to wages on this basis. 3. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that all these contentions have not been considered at all by the Labour Court. There is no discussion about these contentions raised by the petitioner in the written statement, nor is there any WP-5780 & 5781-2010 4 appreciation or analysis of the evidence on record. In these circumstances, the applications will have to be remanded for a fresh hearing. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by passing the following order : “O R D E R” (i). The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai on 27th November, 2009 in Application (IDA) Nos.268 of 2002 and 267 of 2002, respectively, are set aside. (ii). The Application (IDA) Nos.268 of 2002 and 267 of 2002, respectively, are remanded to the Labour Court, Mumbai, for a fresh hearing. WP-5780 & 5781-2010 5 (iii). Parties are at liberty to lead such additional evidence as they desire. (iv). The Labour Court, Mumbai, shall hear and dispose of the Application (IDA) Nos.268 of 2002 and 267 of 2002, respectively, within a period of six months from today. (v). Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (vi). Parties shall appear before the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai on 27th September, 2010 at 11 A.M. for directions.