(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.
(2.) THE short point which arises for consideration in the matter is whether the respondent No. 1 workman who was offered the opportunity to join the services unconditionally, having failed to join the services, can he still insist for back wages on award being passed in his favour for his reinstatement in the service.
(3.) PLACING reliance in the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (Sonal Garments v. Trimbak Shankar Karve) reported in 2002 (6) Bom. C. R. 529 : 2002 (III) C. L. R. 488, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Labour Court has clearly held that from 3-3-1990 to 9-9-1992 the workman was employed with some other agency and for that period the workman would not be entitled for the back wages. However, while arriving at the said conclusion, the Labour Court has totally ignored the fact that the petitioners had offered to the workman an opportunity to join the services unconditionally and this was clearly stated in the written statement filed before the Labour Court on 23-3-1992 and yet the workman had not joined the services. This fact, coupled with the fact that the workman was employed with some other employer during the period 3-3-1990 to 9-9-1992, and considering the claim of the workman that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 27-3-1990 without admitting the claim of the workman in that regard, the fact remains that the workman himself is responsible for not availing the opportunity given to him by the petitioners and, therefore, the Labour Court erred in ordering the payment of back wages for the period from 24-3-1992 onwards.