MARATHAWADA UNIVERSITY Vs. KISHEN BABULAL JIWANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the Marathwada University and the estate Manager of the said University challenging the order of reinstatement passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 by the industrial Court, Aurangabad.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 was working as mason in Marathwada university whose services were terminated on 18-10-1982. He approached the Labour Court, Aurangabad, against the dis-continuation of his service and the Labour Court found that unfair labour practice is committed by the University in discontinuing the respondent No. 1. In spite of that the Labour Court thought it fit to grant only retrenchment compensation to the respondent No. 1 and request of the respondent no. 1 for reinstatement with continuity of service is not granted by the labour Court. The respondent, therefore, took the matter to the Industrial Court, aurangabad, and the Industrial Court granted him reinstatement with full back wages relying on he finding recorded by the labour Court regarding unfair labour practice committed by the University. It is this order of reinstatement with full back wages granted infavour of the respondent No. 1 is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) SHRI Pradeep Shahane, appearing for the University, contended that the approach of, the Industrial Court in granting reinstatement is not correct. The Labour Court has found that the discharge of the respondent No. 1 was illegal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and merely because the provisions of Section 25-F were not complied with, the Labour Court had rightly grant ed notice pay retrenchment compensation. The respondent No. 1 was not entitled for reinstatement with full back wages but the Industrial court while confirming the finding under section 25-F granted reinstate ment with full back wages. The Industrial Court proceeded on the footing that whenever there is non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, reinstatement must fail. According to the learned counsel, this approach of the Industrial Court is contrary to the provisions of the-Act and as in the present case retrenchment of the respondent No. 1 was bona fide, he should not have been reinstated. He relied upon the decisions of the supreme Court in Workman of Koimptur B Mills Ltd. v. Labour Court and others (1980 Labour Law Journal Volume 1, 503) and Shankar Krishna nikam v. Messrs. Bhudayan Sons Private Limited Engineering and Founders, (1982) 45 Indian Factories and Labour Reports 281. The ratios in both these decisions do not apply in the present case because the retrenchment for not granting reinstatement for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F need not always result in reinstatement if the retrenchment is bona fide. But in the present case, the retrenchment is found to be not bona fide.