M/s. Balaji Industrial Security Agency & Anr. v. V/s.Jagdish Bholanath Gupta
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Megha 38_wp_5656_2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.5656 OF 2026M/s. Balaji Industrial Security Agencyand Anr....PetitionersV/s.Jagdish Bholanath Gupta...Respondent________________Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh for the Petitioners.Mr. Sanjay Kharat i/b. Ms. Megha Keluskar for Respondent No.2.________________CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 20 AUGUST 2026.P.C.:1)By this Petition, Petitioner-employer has challenged order dated1 December 2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, allowing Application (IDA) No.148 of 2018 filed by theRespondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2)I have heard Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for thePetitioners, Mr.Kharat, the learned counsel appearing for RespondentNo.2 and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I havealso gone through the findings recorded by the Labour Court and alsoperused the records of the case filed alongwith the Petition. Page No. 1 of 3 20 August 2026 Megha 38_wp_5656_20263)It appears that the Respondent demanded leave wages ofRs.58,153/- for 84 days. Apart from the fact that there is absolutely noevidence of leave of 84 days being balance in the leave account, thereappears to be a statutory limit of 45 days for accumulation of leave underSection 18(5) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulationof Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. Under Section 18(5)of the Act, every worker is permitted to accumulate earned leave uptomaximum 45 days. Therefore, the claim for leave wages is required to becapped at 45 days, which approximately comes to Rs.30,000/-. 4)The Labour Court has also awarded bonus for the years 2014-15(Rs.9,000/-), 2015-16 (Rs.18,000/-). However, there is great deal ofdispute between the parties about the date on which service of theRespondent commenced. Salary was paid to the Respondent throughcheque only from 1 October 2016. On the basis of an I-card allegedlyissued on 20 August 2015, the Labour Court has presumed that theRespondent has commenced service on 30 September 2014. Since theperiod of service from 2014 to 2016 is disputed, it would not beappropriate to award the claim for bonus for the years 2014-15 and2015-16. Even otherwise, the Respondent never claimed bonus for thesaid years while he was in service. It is directly by letter dated 23 October2018 that the Respondent claimed bonus for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. In my view, therefore amount of Rs.27,000/- deserves to be deductedtowards bonus for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Page No. 2 of 3 20 August 2026 Megha 38_wp_5656_20265)So far as rest of the amounts are concerned, the same can beretained since same relate to earned wages for August-2018 (Rs.18,000),bonus for the years 2016-17(Rs.18,000/-) and 2017-18 (Rs.6,000/-).6)Accordingly, total entitlement of the Respondent would only beRs. 72,000/- (Rs.30,000+18,000+18,000+6,000).7)Accordingly, the order passed by the Labour Court dated 1December 2025 is modified by directing the Petitioner to pay an amountof Rs.72,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date ofapplication till realisation of the amount. The resultant amount shall bepaid to the Respondent within a period of six weeks.8)Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed and disposed of.[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]Page No. 3 of 3 20 August 2026
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Shops and Establishments (Regulationof Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Aug 2026. The bench was SANDEEP V MARNE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.