Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4104 OF 2013 Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and anr. ..Petitioners … : Versus : N.G. Sane & Ors. .Respondents … Mr. A.S. Rao, for the Petitioners. Mr. Yogendra M. Pendse, for Respondent Nos.1 to 10. Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Govt. Pleader with Ms. Savita A. Prabhune, AGP for State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C : 1) The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 13 February 2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Misc. Application (ULP) (Reco) No. 1 2012. / 2) On account of dismissal of Letter Patent Appeal preferred by the Petitioner-Corporation before the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 16 July 2026, the liability to make payments in terms of the order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane is now crystallized. The _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 1 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx only dispute is about the quantum of amount payable under the judgment and order dated 29 April 2010. It appears that the Petitioner-Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation did not produce any material before the Industrial Court, on account of which the Court has accepted the computations given by the Respondent-employees. Now the Municipal Corporation has sought to produce certain material to disprove the amounts granted by the Industrial Court in the impugned order dated 13 February 2013. On the other hand, an Affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondent-employees justifying award of amounts claimed by them. 3) Perusal of the order dated 13 February 2026 passed by the Industrial Court would indicate that there is no discussion as to why the amounts claimed by the Respondents are awarded. While allowing the Recovery Application, the Industrial Court has recorded only following findings : 2. The judgment of this Court is confirmed by the High Court. 10 applicants have worked out the monetary benefits in the Annexure to the application. The detailed working out of the applicants claim is also given in the chart ' produced on record. The non-applicant appeared through counsel, but failed to file any Reply. Thereafter, none has appeared for the non-applicants. The pleadings of the applicants are uncontroverted. The applicants have filed affidavit of applicant Nandkishor Govind Sane along with chart showing fixation of pay in revised scale. Claim affidavit and documents are unchallenged, and I have therefore, non reason to disbelieve the applicants or discard their claim. The lack of detailed discussion on fixation determination of the quantum / is attributable essentially to absence of any defense material produced by / Petitioner. 4) Now that there is material available on record, which is produced by both the sides, it is appropriate that adjudication of an exact amount is made. Instead of this Court directly making this adjudication, it is appropriate that the same is done by the Industrial Court. _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 2 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx 5) While Mr. Pendse the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employees is not really averse to remand of proceedings for adjudication of the exact amount payable, he submits that Petitioner s’ conduct is responsible for non-recording of detailed reasons by the Industrial Court in the order dated 13 February 2013. I am in full agreement with the submissions of Mr. Pendse. The Petitioner-KDMC did not produce any material disputing the amounts claimed by the Respondent-employees. This action on the part of the Petitioner-KDMC has resulted in a situation warranting fresh adjudication upon remand of the proceedings. The impugned order was passed on 13 February 2013 and adjudication of the amounts payable is required to be done now after a period of 13 long years. Therefore, Petitioner-KDMC is required to be saddled with costs. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order : (i) Order dated 13 February, 2013 passed by the Industrial Court in Misc. Application ULP (Reco) No.1 2012 is set aside. Misc. / Application ULP (Reco) No.1 2012 is remanded to the Industrial / Court for fresh adjudication. (ii) Both the parties would be at liberty to produce relevant material for the purpose of ascertainment of exact amount payable under the order dated 29 April 2010. (iii) The Industrial Court shall proceed to decide the Recovery Application on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in the order. (iv)Petitioner shall pay to each of the Respondent-employees their / legal heirs costs of Rs.5,000 - within a period of 6 weeks. The / amount of costs shall be transmitted in the bank accounts of the Respondents No.1 to 10 their legal heirs. / _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 3 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx (v) The Industrial Court shall proceed to decide the remanded proceedings in an expeditious manner preferably within a period of 6 months. (vi) The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court alongwith copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court on 21 September 2026 and shall obtain further directions for fixation of dates of hearing in the remanded proceedings. (vii) The entire amount deposited in this Court alongwith accrued interest shall be transferred to the Industrial Court which shall be invested by the Industrial Court in interest bearing deposits. 6) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 4 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.09.16 10:49:09 +0530