1 937-wp-2992-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2992 OF 2023 Shrikrushna Kundalik Sonwane VERSUS Chief Executive Officer Nikash C. N. C. Engineers Pvt. Limited ... Mr. H. U. Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B. R. Kawre, Advocate for Respondent ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.12.2022 passed by learned Presiding Officer @ Judge of 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar on an application (I.D.A. No.114 of 2018), the petitioner/employee is before this Court. 2. The petitioner is concerned about the payment of his leave encashment. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court observed that 30 days paid leave of the applicant were carried forward to the succeding year i.e. last year of his service and the paid leaves available to him in the last year of his service would be 12. That, in view of that calculation at the time of petitioner’s resignation, he should have 42 paid leaves available. The muster roll of the applicant at Exhibit-C-14 was taken into consideration by the Labour Court. 3. Mr. H. U. Dhage, learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner subsequently came to know that the Labour Court has passed an order on 03.05.2019 2026:BHC-AUG:38205 2 937-wp-2992-2023 thereby directing the respondent to produce the documents as were prayed by the petitioner/applicant in his application at Exhibit-U-5. Mr. Dhage, learned Advocate would submit that the respondent/employer did not produce these documents on record before the Labour Court. 4. It is the contention of Mr. Dhage that if these documents came before the Labour Court, the things would be clear and the entitlement of the petitioner to the desired leave encashment would be clear. In view of this, he submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be relegated back to Labour Court for passing fresh order and for directing the employer to produce on record the documents as were prayed in application below Exhibit-U5. He further submits that the Labour Court has considered the record of 2018 only. 5. Mr. B. R. Kawre, learned Advocate for the respondent/employer strongly objects to such prayer. He submits that as per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, the leave encashment as is permissible was rightly granted by the Labour Court. He would submit that at the most, leave encashment for 30 days is permissible and accumulation of leave up to 30 days is allowed. As regards to the consideration of 2018 record, he submits that the Labour Court has duly considered the said record in the light of provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. 6. May it be, since the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned Judge of 2nd Labour Court is before me, I deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order and to 3 937-wp-2992-2023 relegate the matter back to the Labour Court for passing the order afresh. 7. Respondent/employer shall produce on record all those documents which are mentioned in the Ehxibit-U-5, if not already produced. 8. Learned Judge of the Labour Court is requested to pass a fresh order considering the documents which the employer shall produce as per the order dated 03.05.2019. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not commented anything on merits of the case of either party. With these, Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10. Parties accept to appear before the Labour Court on 01.09.2026. 11. Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026