M/S Balaji Kirana Stores Thr. Its ... vs Bandu S/O Zituji Wadgure
2016 Latest Caselaw 2742 Bom

                                            1                                           wp2324.08




                                                                                     
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                             
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.2324 OF 2008




                                                            
     M/s. Balaji Kirana Stores,
     through its Proprietor Namdeo 
     Balaji Tadas, Aged about 55 years,




                                               
     Occupation - Business, 
     R/o Golbazar, Chandrapur, 
                             
     Tahsil and District Chandrapur.                                  ....       PETITIONER

      
                            
                        VERSUS


     Bandu s/o Zituji Wadgure,
      

     Aged about - Adult, 
     Occupation - Not known, 
   



     R/o Lalpeth Old Basti, Ward No.24,
     Chandrapur, Tahsil and District
     Chandrapur.                                                      ....       RESPONDENT





     ______________________________________________________________
                            None for the petitioner,
        Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate h/f. Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the
                                  respondent.
     ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 10 JUNE, 2016 th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. None appeared for the petitioner on 09-06-2016. The

matter was kept on 10-06-2016. Today again none appears for the

petitioner/employer.

2 wp2324.08

Heard Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate holding for Shri

P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the respondent/employee.

2. The employer has challenged the order passed by the

Labour Court allowing the application filed by the employee under

Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, directing it to pay

Rs.19,812.40 to the employee with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from 30-11-1988 i.e. filing of the application till the amount is

paid to the employee. This amount is towards the difference of wages.

3. It is undisputed that the employee was employed with the

petitioner and paid Rs.1,300/- per month. The employee approached

the Labour Court with the grievance that he was not paid as per the

minimum wages and he was entitled for the difference. The employer

opposed the application and raised the objection that the application

filed by the employee was not maintainable.

4. The Labour Court repelled the objection of the employer

and after considering the material on record concluded that the

employee is entitled for payment at the rate of minimum wages and

directed the employer to pay Rs.19,812.40 towards the difference of

3 wp2324.08

the amount. The Labour Court also directed the employer to pay the

interest as recorded above.

5. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the

respondent/employee, I have examined the documents placed on the

record of the petition. The conclusions of the Labour Court are proper

and based on proper appreciation of material on record and are in

consonance with the legal position. I do not find any illegality or

perversity in the impugned order. I see no reason to interfere with the

matter.

6. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties

to bear their own costs.

The record shows that the employer deposited amount as

per the impugned order and the employee has withdrawn the amount,

furnishing security as directed by this Court.

As the claim of the employee is upheld and the challenge

to the impugned order is dismissed, the security furnished by the

employee shall stand discharged.

JUDGE adgokar