Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Khalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

Home
Bombay HC
2011
Khalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. Vs Candulal ChindKhalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. v. Candulal Chindha Jadha

Allowed

Khalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. v. Candulal Chindha Jadhav

Bombay HC20 Jun 2011CAW/1207/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves a civil application seeking an extension of time to deposit back wages determined under the Minimum Wages Act. The court allowed the application, granting an eight-week extension for back wages calculation and one week to deposit a draft amount of Rs.2,85,639.60.

What did the court decide?

Extension of eight weeks for depositing back wages and one week to deposit a draft of Rs.2,85,639.60.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Extension of eight weeks for depositing back wages and one week to deposit a draft of Rs.2,85,639.60.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to deposit back wages due to delay in obtaining minimum wage information from the Labour Officer. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court of Bombay allowed an application by an original petitioner for an extension of time to deposit back wages. The delay was attributed to the time taken by the Labour Officer to provide relevant information for calculating minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The application was disposed of by allowing the extension.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

caw1207-11

1

ttm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7701 OF 2010

Shri Khalil Hafijji Mo.Shaban and Anr.

.. Applicants

Vs.

Shri Chandulal Chindha Jadhav

.. Respondent

Mr.N.R.Bubna for the Applicant

Mr.R.N.Gite for the respondent

CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 20^th JUNE, 2011

P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This application is preferred by original petitioner for extension of time to deposit back wages as per order dt.1.3.11 passed by this court (Coram: Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J.)

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that for calculating the back wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, they approached the Labour Officer. Labour Officer took some time to provide relevant information to the applicant for calculating the minimum wages of respondent.

caw1207-11

2

The learned counsel for respondent submits that the calculation submitted by the applicant is not correct and is, therefore, disputing the same.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, I am satisfied that the applicants took some time to calculate back wages of respondent as per Minimum Wages Act.

Considering these facts, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under:

“(a) The time for depositing the amount of Back Wages as per order dated 1/3/2011 passed in present Writ Petition may kindly be extended by a further period of eight weeks.”

Office is directed to accept a draft of Rs.2,85,639.60 from applicant. One week’s time is granted to deposit the said draft.

Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

(K.K. TATED, J.)

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to deposit back wages due to delay in obtaining minimum wage information from the Labour Officer.
2.
Whether the applicant's proposed calculation of back wages requires further consideration or extension of time.

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Minimum Wages ActMinimum Wages Act
order dt.1.3.11order dt.1.3.11
prayer clause (a)... Writ Petitionprayer clause (a)... Writ Petition

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Shri Khalil Hafijji Mo.Shaban and Anr.
respondent
Shri Chandulal Chindha Jadhav

Coram

AI extract

K.K. Tated

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 20 Jun 2011 · June
Registered: 17 Jun 2011
Case no.: CAW/1207/2011
CNR: HCBM010145122011
Topic: Pension and Retirement Benefits
Bench: K.k. Tated
Disposal: Disposed Off

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from K.k. Tated

Indian Chronicles Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation
13 Jun 2011
Alka P. Patankar (Decd.) -by Lrs - Dilip Purshottam Patankar and Anr. Vs the Secretary - Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.
13 Jun 2011
Chandrakant Parshuram Gaikwad Vs Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited
13 Jun 2011
Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation Vs Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra
20 Jun 2011
Writer Safegaurd Pvt. Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fund and Ors.
20 Jun 2011
Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation Vs Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra
20 Jun 2011

Cite this judgement

Khalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. v. Candulal Chindha Jadhav, CAW/1207/2011 (BOM), decided on 20 June 2011.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Minimum Wages ActMinimum Wages Act
order dt.1.3.11order dt.1.3.11
prayer clause (a)... Writ Petitionprayer clause (a)... Writ Petition

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

K.K. Tated

Parties & counsel