EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MORESHWAR MAHADEORAO WAKHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition. Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dated 23rd August, 1990, in Revision (ULPN) No. 71/1990.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Truck driver by the petitioner No. 1 vide order dated 17-5-1971. The respondent No. 1 continued to work as truck driver until his services came to be terminated by order dated 3rd September, 1983. The ground, on which, services of the respondent No. 1 have been terminated, is that the respondent No. 1 was found to be medically unfit by the Civil Surgeon at the relevant time. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of termination by filing complaint (ULPA) No. 520/1984 before the Labour Court, Nagpur. The Labour Court, by its judgment and order dated 8th February, 1990 allowed the complaint and ordered reinstatement of respondent No. 1. Against the said decision, revision application was presented before the Industrial Court. The said revision was resisted by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that it was presented by a person, who was not authorised to file the revision application and as such, the same was incompetent. Even on merits the respondent No. 1 resisted the revision petition. The Industrial Court by impugned order dated 23rd August, 1990 was pleased to dismiss the revision application preferred by the petitioner. With regard to the maintainability of the revision application, the Industrial Court held that there was no evidence on record to show that Shri Hatwar, who had presented revision application was authorised to file the written statement or the revision application. It has been further held that the written statement as well Revision Application have not been signed. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Industrial Court held that the Revision petition, as presented by the petitioners herein, was not maintainable. After having answered the preliminary objections in favour of respondent No. 1, even on merits, the Industrial Court dismissed the Revision petition.

(3.) THE petitioners thereafter carried the matter by way of this writ petition before this Court. Much prior the impugned order on 3rd of September, 1990, the respondent No. 1 was reinstated as truck driver and has been working in that capacity since then. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 1 would attain the age of superannuation in another about 3? (three and half) years time. It is also pointed out that all through out the service record of the respondent No. 1 is absolutely unblemish.