IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6813 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 6813 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 6813 OF 2006 M.GOPINATHAN AND ANR. ... PETITIONERS. M.GOPINATHAN AND ANR. ... PETITIONERS. M.GOPINATHAN AND ANR. ... PETITIONERS. VS. VS. VS. M/S. BAJAJ LTD. ... RESPONDENTS. M/S. BAJAJ LTD. ... RESPONDENTS. M/S. BAJAJ LTD. ... RESPONDENTS. MS. BHAGYASHREE MAHALE I/B. S.R.NARGOLKAR FOR THE MS. BHAGYASHREE MAHALE I/B. S.R.NARGOLKAR FOR THE MS. BHAGYASHREE MAHALE I/B. S.R.NARGOLKAR FOR THE PETITIONERS. PETITIONERS. PETITIONERS. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : January 16, 2007. DATE : January 16, 2007. DATE : January 16, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Respondent- Company has paid ex-gratia ad 1. The Respondent- Company has paid ex-gratia ad 1. The Respondent- Company has paid ex-gratia ad hoc payments to all the employees, who had put in 100 % hoc payments to all the employees, who had put in 100 % hoc payments to all the employees, who had put in 100 % efficiency in production. The Petitioners were denied efficiency in production. The Petitioners were denied efficiency in production. The Petitioners were denied the ex - gratia ad hoc payment and hence, they raised a the ex - gratia ad hoc payment and hence, they raised a the ex - gratia ad hoc payment and hence, they raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The Respondent has submitted before the Labour Court that Respondent has submitted before the Labour Court that Respondent has submitted before the Labour Court that as the Petitioners have not put in 100% efficiency in as the Petitioners have not put in 100% efficiency in as the Petitioners have not put in 100% efficiency in production, they have not been paid the ex gratia ad production, they have not been paid the ex gratia ad production, they have not been paid the ex gratia ad hoc payment. The Supervisor was examined by the hoc payment. The Supervisor was examined by the hoc payment. The Supervisor was examined by the Respondents, who deposed that it was obligatory on the Respondents, who deposed that it was obligatory on the Respondents, who deposed that it was obligatory on the workmen to give production in accordance with the norms workmen to give production in accordance with the norms workmen to give production in accordance with the norms fixed by the Company, as the system followed in the fixed by the Company, as the system followed in the fixed by the Company, as the system followed in the company was to record the production of each employee company was to record the production of each employee company was to record the production of each employee at the end of each shift. The production records at the end of each shift. The production records at the end of each shift. The production records maintained by the Supervisor in regard to the maintained by the Supervisor in regard to the maintained by the Supervisor in regard to the Petitioners was produced before the Labour Court, to Petitioners was produced before the Labour Court, to Petitioners was produced before the Labour Court, to substantiate that the Petitioners did not give 100% substantiate that the Petitioners did not give 100% substantiate that the Petitioners did not give 100% production. After considering the material placed on production. After considering the material placed on production. After considering the material placed on record by the rival parties, the Labour Court reached record by the rival parties, the Labour Court reached record by the rival parties, the Labour Court reached the conclusion that the respondent did not discriminate the conclusion that the respondent did not discriminate the conclusion that the respondent did not discriminate in denying the benefits to the petitioner and by so in denying the benefits to the petitioner and by so in denying the benefits to the petitioner and by so recording a finding, the application (IDA) No. 45 of recording a finding, the application (IDA) No. 45 of recording a finding, the application (IDA) No. 45 of 1999 and Application (IDA) No.46 of 1999 came to be 1999 and Application (IDA) No.46 of 1999 came to be 1999 and Application (IDA) No.46 of 1999 came to be rejected by the Labour Court. rejected by the Labour Court. rejected by the Labour Court. . Perused the Order passed by the Labour Court. . Perused the Order passed by the Labour Court. . Perused the Order passed by the Labour Court. The same does not call for any interference. Hence, the The same does not call for any interference. Hence, the The same does not call for any interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. ..... ..... ..... [A.P.DESHPANDE, J.] [A.P.DESHPANDE, J.] [A.P.DESHPANDE, J.]