1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5643 OF 2010 (ARVIND RAMDAS VALKE..VS..ISPAT INDUSTRIES LIMITED.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner in person. Mr.R.B.Puranik, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 8th November, 2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to deposit the arrears of wages and consequential benefits of the petitioner amounting to Rs.47,77,550/- and permit the petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,20,550/- being undisputed wages and benefits. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Along with the complaint the petitioner has filed an application under Section 30(2) of the Act for grant of interim relief. The Industrial Court granted interim relief and directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to do a light job during the pendency of the complaint. According to the 2 petitioner, the complaint was undecided and hence, the petitioner ought to have permitted to do a light job but however, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated in the year 2003 and hence, the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary and consequential benefits to the tune of Rs.47,77,299/-. The application for directing the respondent to deposit the same in the Court was filed by the petitioner. The respondent strongly opposed the prayer made in the application and pleaded that the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 30.07.2003 after holding departmental enquiry against him and the petitioner had also failed to appear before the Civil Surgeon and also failed to produce medical certificate. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner had not amended his complaint as per the claim made in the application for direction to the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.47,77,550/-. The Industrial Court, on an appreciation of the matter, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 8th November, 2010 appears to be just and proper. Though the Industrial Court had directed the respondent to allow the complainant to do a light job during the pendency of the complaint, it is necessary to note that the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 30.07.2003 after holding the domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The Industrial Court considered the fact that the petitioner failed to produce the medical certificate and also failed to remain present before the Civil Surgeon for his medical examination. Since there was a serious dispute about the payment of arrears of salary and other dues to the petitioner and since this issue was a matter of evidence, the Industrial Court 3 rightly held that the respondent could not have been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.47,77,550/- in the Industrial Court by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. The Court held, and rightly so that, the said application could not have been allowed at that stage of the proceedings. Moreover, according to the Industrial Court, the said claims did not appear in the main complaint. The order passed by the Industrial Court is just and proper and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgments reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 968 (Britannia Industries Vs. M.G.K. Union) and 2008(5) Mh.L.J. 208 (M.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ambadas) and relied on by the petitioner appearing in person are totally inapplicable to the facts in this case. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..