EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. DINESH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 1.9.2009 delivered in Writ Petition No. 686/09 upheld the relief of reinstatement with continuity granted by Labour Court as also by Industrial Court but brought down full back wages to 25%. This Court in L.P.A. on 17.9.2010 admitted L.P.A., granted ad-interim relief of reinstatement after taking on record statement that amount of back wages as awarded by learned Single Judge has already been deposited. This interim stay has been confirmed on 25.11.2010. It appears that on that day Shri D.C. Naukarkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents/workmen, sought time to apply for withdrawal of amount. However, that application has not been filed till date.

(2.) Though learned A.G.P. has invited our attention to two Complaints (ULP) filed vide Complaint (ULP) No. 16/98 and Complaint (ULP) No. 15/98, first adjudication therein by third Labour Court on 27.12001, the common order dated 10.2003 passed by Industrial Court remanding the matter back to Labour Court to answer the issue whether provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were attracted and the later common judgment delivered by very same Labour Court again granting reinstatement with continuity and full back wages, we do not wish to go into all these niceties. By said judgment dated 18.8.2003 Labour Court declared termination of complainant before him with effect from 1.1.1998 as an unfair labour practice falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act No. 1 of 1972). Consequently, it granted relief of continuity with full back wages. The employer then approached Industrial Court in Revision Petitions (ULPN) No. 259/03 & 260/03. Vide order dated 26.7.2004 the Industrial Court dismissed those Revisions preferred under Section 44 of Act No. 1 of 197 This concurrent adjudication was then questioned in Writ Petition No. 686/09 and learned Single Judge has found no substance in it vide judgment dated 1.9.2009. However, because of readiness and willingness shown by learned Counsel for workmen, quantum of back wages was brought down to 25% from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. The learned Single Judge has modified the adjudication by Labour Court only to that extent.

(3.) Mr. H.R. Dhumale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants, submits that the respondent No. 2 Manoranjan had completed 56 years when L.P.A. was filed in 2009 and as such, by this date must have reached the age of superannuation and gone out. In so far as the other respondent Dinesh is concerned, he claims ignorance about actual joining either by Dinesh or Manoranjan. He submits that after 2009 he has not received any instructions from the Department in this connection. However, as there was stay given by this Court, both of them have admittedly not joined the employment.