MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED Vs. SURESH WAMANRAO MASODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer has questioned the judgment dated 08.08.1994 delivered by the Labour Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULPA) No. 438/1990 and the order dated 30.08.1995 delivered by the Industrial Court, Amravati in Revision (ULPN) No. 216/1994. The present respondent nos. 1 to 3 have challenged their termination by filing above referred complaint No. 438/1990 on various grounds and Labour Court found that it constituted unfair labour practice, as said employees had put in continuous service of 240 days. In view of its findings it awarded them reinstatement with full backwages. The petitioner employer challenged the same in revision before the Industrial Court under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act (hereinafter referred at to MRTU & PULP Act for short), as mentioned above and the Industrial Court has affirmed those findings.

(2.) The present petition was admitted on 04.10.1995. On 12.10.1995 while passing orders on interim relief this Court directed interim reinstatement of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and also directed them to withdraw the amount of wages already deposited before the Labour Court, Amravati by petitioner on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the said Court. This Court observed that in case Writ Petition is allowed and the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court are set aside, respondent nos. 1 to 3 would refund the amount of backwages drawn by them pursuant to this order.

(3.) In this background I have heard Senior Advocate Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari with Shri Chavan, Advocate for petitioner. Advocate Shri Gopal Mishra, appeared for respondent no.4, while learned A.G.P. appeared for respondent nos. 5,7 and 8. The hearing was practically over in first half and as no body appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3, the matter was adjourned till second half. In second half Advocate Shri Manoj Rajan has appeared and stated that the brief is with him as his late father represented respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the matter. He further sought adjourned to procure vakalatnama and to argue the matter. He pointed out that as names of juniors of his late father were appearing in cause list the matter was not noticed and therefore he could not secure any instructions. However, considering the fact that matter is on board since long and matter is very old, his request was rejected. He was directed to assist the court in the matter on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 without prejudice to their interest in any manner.