Bhatia Road Lines 34 Central Venue ... vs Manikrao Kashinath Pawankar
2016 Latest Caselaw 5510 Bom

                                                                   WP/2216/1996
                                          1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                           
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 2216 OF 1996




                                                   
     Bhatia Road Lines,
     34, Central Avenue Road,
     Nagpur 18.                                     ..Petitioner




                                                  
     Versus

     Manikrao Kashinath Pawankar
     R/o Anand Bhawan,




                                        
     Station Road, Dhule.                           ..Respondent
                              ig        ...
                     Advocate for Respondent : Smt. A.N.Ansari
                                        ...
                            
                            CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated : September 22, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Transfer notice which was issued to the petitioner is

returned unserved for want of name. The same party has

already appeared in Civil Application No.4510 of 1997. Office

remark indicates that the service on the petitioner is, therefore,

complete.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour

Court dated 11.5.1994, by which, application IDA No.39 of 1998

under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been

WP/2216/1996

allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of

Rs.58,297.55 Ps. to the respondent on/or before 15.6.1994,

failing which, interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 22.11.1988

was granted.

3. By order dated 7.10.1995, this Court admitted the

petition and stayed the impugned judgment and award. The

petitioner was directed to deposit amount of Rs.58,000/- in this

Court. Same has been deposited on 10.11.1995 and

subsequently withdrawn by the respondent.

4. Rather than dismissing the matter in default, I have gone

through the award dated 11.5.1994 and the petition paper book.

5. I have considered the reasons assigned by the Labour

Court, which are based on the evidence recorded in the

proceedings. The conclusions of the Labour Court from

paragraph No.48 onwards upto paragraph 63 would indicate that

the Labour Court has granted a small portion of the amount

claimed by the respondent. I do not find that the reasons

assigned could be termed as being perverse or erroneous.

WP/2216/1996

6. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and Rule is

discharged. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the

remainder amount inclusive of accrued interest from this Court

after the expiry of six weeks from today.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d