Bombay High Court
Kishor Mahadeorao Thakare vs Bhimrao Vishramji Solanki on 22 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp2434.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2434/2008
Kishor Mahadeorao Thakare,
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R.K. Agro, Gumthala, Tah. Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur.
Having its Registered Office at
Khushal Trailors, Behind Mahaveer
Cycles Stores, Subhash Putla
Bhandara Road, Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..VS..
Bhimrao Vishramji Solanki,
aged about 50 Yrs., Occu.
R/o Wadoda, Tah. Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.A. Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 22.6.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.A. Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. None appears 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 the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the employer to pay Rs.1,84,800/- to the employee.
2 wp2434.08
3. This Court, by the order dated 20 th June, 2008, directed issuance of notice
and stayed effect, operation and execution of impugned order.
4. The employee filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 contending that he was appointed on 24 th April, 1993 by the
employer on salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, out of which he was paid Rs.2,800/- per
month and balance amount of Rs.2,200/- was deducted towards insurance and other
welfare benefits. The employee pleaded that when he required the amount which
was deducted by the employer and demanded it from the employer, he was dismissed
from service on 25th October, 2010. The employee made claim for the difference of
salary for the period of 25th April, 1993 till 24th October, 2010. It is submitted that
there has not been prior adjudication regarding the claim of the employee. The
learned Advocate has submitted that the Labour Court could not have entertained the
application Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and could not have
decided the claim of the employee for the difference of wages. It is prayed that the
petition be dismissed.
5. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner I have
examined the documents placed on the record of the petition. Apart from the fact
that the claim made by the employee could not have been entertained and
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I
find that the material on the record is not sufficient to conclude that the employee
has established that he was engaged on monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and
he was paid only Rs.2,800/- per month and the remaining amount of Rs.2,200/- per
3 wp2434.08
month was deducted by the employer. I find that the conclusions of the Labour
Court are perverse and unsustainable.
6. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The application filed by the employee under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act is dismissed.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(iv)
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
