Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Thr. Divisional Controller, Chandrapur v. Shri. Meshram S/O Kaniram Chawhan

1 / 2 1.wp1135.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1135 OF 2026 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandrapur Vs.

Mehram s/o Kaniram Chawhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Rohan R. Chhabra, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATE : 13.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner's challenge is to order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Labour Court, Chandrapur. allowing the application filed by the employee under Section 32-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3.

The primary contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that the employee has filed application under Section 33-C(2) belatedly and without explaining any sufficient reasons.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there is no limitation for filing the Prity

2 / 2 1.wp1135.2026 application, however, the employee was not diligent in raising the claim. He further submits that there does not exist any pre-existing right in favour of the employee and as such, the application ought to have been rejected. 5.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the application filed by the employee under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was for claiming the amount of difference of salary in accordance with the settlement which was arrived at between the Corporation and the employees. The learned Labour Court has elaborately recorded the details of the entitlement of the difference of salary in paragraph Nos.10 to 12 of the impugned order. 6.

Perusal of the reasons clearly reveal that the employee became entitled for difference of salary amount of Rs.84,487/- and thus, on the basis of this pre-existing right, he became entitled for grant of difference. 7.

On perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any perversity with the impugned order and hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.) Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/02/2026 12:13:13 Prity