ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. Heard Sri K. Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner-management and Sri T.S. Anantharam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Union. Perused the records. Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of herbal medicinal products including cosmetics, speciality chemicals, etc. having its factory at Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore. Workmen represented by its Union placed a Charter of Demands on 26-11-2012 before Management and conciliation ended in failure. Hence, matter was referred to Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication in A.I.D. No. 07/2014 as per reference dated 31-12-2013, Annexure-B. Pursuant to same, respondents have filed claim statement as per Annexure-C. Writ petitioner-Management who is second party has filed a counter-statement as per Annexure-D. On account of pendency of dispute and same having not ended in final disposal, has per-forced respondent-Union to file an application seeking for interim relief by invoking Sections 10(4) and 11 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contending inter alia that as per two statements appended to said application workers similarly placed on par with the members of respondent-Union are being paid more wages/salaries as indicated in Annexure-B and as such, wages that are being paid to them should be extended to the members of respondent-Union as indicated in Annexure-A. Second party i.e., writ petitioner has filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the affidavit in support of application and after considering rival contentions Tribunal by impugned order dated 21-11-2015, Annexure-G, allowed the application in part and directed second party-management to extend the benefits of wage increase to the workmen whose names are shown at Annexure-A within one month from the date of this order. Same is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. It is the contention of Sri K. Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner-management that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of benefit of wages contending that merely one set of persons who had granted some increase in wages by the management for varied reasons as a ground to grant to all the employees. 3. It is the contention of Sri K. Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner-management that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of benefit of wages contending that merely one set of persons who had granted some increase in wages by the management for varied reasons as a ground to grant to all the employees. He would also submit that in the absence of issue being referred to adjudication, Labour Court cannot assume the jurisdiction to enhance the wages of persons who have not got increase and standardise the wages of all the persons on account of alleged discrimination, that too without there being any cogent evidence available on record to establish this fact. He would also submit that in order to entitle the members of respondent-Union for being paid any wages in addition to what has been paid during the pendency of dispute, evidence had to be tendered to prove the alleged discrimination and in the absence of such evidence, they cannot be heard to contend that workmen of respondent-Union had acquired some expertise in discharging same duties as that of workmen who had been granted higher wages. In the absence of such finding recorded by Tribunal with regard to prima facie case, Labour Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain such claim. 4. Per contra, Sri T.S. Anantharam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Union would support the impugned order and contend that after considering the material placed by the workmen, which was not rebutted by the management, Labour Court has rightly come to a conclusion by directing Management to pay wages equivalent to the wages that was being paid to workmen as indicated in Annexure-B to the workmen whose names are indicated in Annexure-A and submits the thatre is no error committed by Labour Court calling for interference. Hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that respondent-workmen - Union has raised a Charter of Demands on 26-11-2012 as per Annexure-A. On conciliation ending in failure, it came to be referred to jurisdictional Labour Court and accordingly, it has registered the dispute - AID No. 07/2014. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that respondent-workmen - Union has raised a Charter of Demands on 26-11-2012 as per Annexure-A. On conciliation ending in failure, it came to be referred to jurisdictional Labour Court and accordingly, it has registered the dispute - AID No. 07/2014. Even though two (2) years have lapsed matter has not proceeded with and as such, respondent-Union has filed an application under Sections 10(4) and 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Annexure-D seeking for a direction to the management to extend the benefits of wage increase to the workmen whose names are indicated in Annexure-A to the application by contending that 14 workmen whose names are indicated in Annexure-B to the application are carrying similar work and they are being paid more. Said application was supported by affidavit of the General Secretary of respondent-Union and said application came to be resisted to by the management by filing objection statement as per Annexure-F denying the averments made therein. 6. Though Sri Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner-management has contended that without there being no reference to the issue of grant of interim relief and it is beyond the scope of present writ petition and as such, Labour Court could not have entertained an application for interim relief, said plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that said issue is no more res Integra in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hotel Imperial v. Workers' Union, 1959-II-LLJ-544 (SC), where under it has been held such plea can be entertained. In that view of the matter, contention raised by Mr. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel stands rejected. 7. In the background of rival pleadings it requires to be examined as to whether the Labour Court was justified in allowing the application and directing the management to extend the benefits of wage increase of workmen as sought for in the application. In that view of the matter, contention raised by Mr. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel stands rejected. 7. In the background of rival pleadings it requires to be examined as to whether the Labour Court was justified in allowing the application and directing the management to extend the benefits of wage increase of workmen as sought for in the application. In order to delve upon this issue, pleadings requires to be looked into and also the annexures to application in question i.e., Annexures-A and B which has been very heavily relied upon by respondent-Union to contend that handful of workmen as shown in Annexure-B had been extended wage increase apart from granting other benefits only to those workmen who have given up their claim for wage increase despite Charter of Demands have been raised and also alleging discrimination between the members of first party-Union who have refused to associate themselves with 14 members-workmen who have been extended wage increase. As against such claim, management has filed counterstatement and have denied the said fact. It is specifically contended as follows: "17. The averment the that management .............. Charter of demands. The second party submits that, the 14 (fourteen) workmen whose wages were revised on the grounds of good performance and conduct not to be construed as benefits paid as a part of the Charter of demands as alleged by the union as discrimination by Management in their application filed under Sections 10(4) and 11 of ID Act, 1947 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in the said matter." 8. A reading of statement of objections do not even remotely suggest bout the management having denied that workmen whose names are indicated in Annexure-B having not been extended revised wages. In other words, management has not denied that wages/salaries that is being paid to those 14 workmen is on account of any different work which is being carried out by those workmen as indicated in Annexure-B. It is because of this precise reason Labour Court having noticed that management is not justified n increasing salary of workers whose names are indicated in Annexure-B and deprive the same to the workers whose names are indicated in Annexure-A, has allowed the application after noticing such discrepancies thereof. Finding recorded by the Labour Court in that regard reads as under: "10. Finding recorded by the Labour Court in that regard reads as under: "10. However, in the present case, the management is not justified in increase of salary of workers at Annexure-B shown in I. A. No. I for example the workers salaries compare with the Annexures-A and B are varying with each other for example name of the employee at Annexure-B Nagaraja N.H, date of joining in to service was on 6-3-1997 is a Senior Operator, drawing salary of Rs. 19,938/-, for the service period 17 years 6 months, variation to Annexure-A Senior Operator Ramu is concerned, same date, same period of service, but drawing a salary of Ps. 14,592/-, but variation is of Rs. 5346/-. Likewise take the example of Senior Operator one Ganesh S.J, in SI. No. 4 of Annexure-A, joining of service is 1-8-1998, 16 years 1 month service, salary is Rs. 14,082/- whereas one Murthy S in I.D. No. 1207 shown in SI. No. 2 of Annexure-B, date of joining is 1-11-1997, service is 16 years 10 months, salary is Rs. 14,419/-variation is Rs. 5,459/-." 9. In order to examine as to the correctness or otherwise of said finding this Court has yet again looked into annexures appended to application and by comparing the said finding has found that workmen whose names are indicated in Annexure-A at SI. Nos. 16, 17 and 18 were appointed during March, April 2005 who have put in 9 years 5 months and 9 years 4 months of service, are drawing salary of Rs. 8,025/-, Rs. 8,225/- and Rs. 9,673/- as against similarly placed person namely operator who had been appointed in the same year i.e., 2-5-2005 and who had put in 9 years 4 months service are drawing a salary of Rs. 13,773/-. Thus, there is difference of Rs. 5,740/-, Rs. 5,548/- and Rs. 4,100/- respectively between same type of workmen. It is because of this precise reason Labour Court has allowed the application and directed the management to pay wages to the workmen as shown in Annexure-A which has been extended to other workmen by second party -management i.e., writ petitioner as per Annexure-B. 10. Though Sri K. Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel is justified in contending that in the absence of evidence Labour Court could not have allowed the application, such situation did not arise in the facts obtained in the instant case. Though Sri K. Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel is justified in contending that in the absence of evidence Labour Court could not have allowed the application, such situation did not arise in the facts obtained in the instant case. As already noticed herein above, averments made in the affidavit supporting application pointing out the difference of wages to similarly placed employees, has not been traversed by management by denying this factual aspect. Non-traversing petition averments amounts to admissions and the fact that workmen whose names are indicted in Annexure-B being similarly placed as that off workmen whose names are indicated in Annexure-A, also not been seriously disputed in the counter-statement or statement of objections by second party-management, it has to be necessarily held that admitted facts have not been proved. Hence, for this reason also order of Tribunal does not call for interference. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good grounds to entertain this writ petition and same stands rejected.