1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5053 OF 2009 (Varsha Printing Ink Manufacturing Co. vs. Shri Kisan Ukey) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 10, 2010. Heard Shri Manoj Rajan Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dandekar, learned counsel for the respondent. The order of dismissal passed after departmental enquiry is found effective by First Labour Court, Nagpur, vide its judgment dated 16.08.2004 as the complainant – employee (present respondent) is held to be protected employee. That order has been maintained by the Industrial Court in Revision on 28.11.2008. The short contention of Shri Manoj Rajan Pillai, learned counsel is, the respondent was elected, as alleged, in 1987 and his statutory tenure expired in 1989. The order of dismissal has been passed in 1991 and he also points out that the tenure continues till the new elections are held. According to him, burden was upon the respondent – employee to show that after 1987 and till 1991, there were no other elections and, therefore, he continues to be a protected employee. 2 Shri Dandekar, learned counsel for the respondent invited attention to consideration of evidence in para 8 by Labour Court. He points out that the respondent – employee specifically deposed that he was elected representative in 1989. With the assistance of both counsel, I have perused the records. The evidence shows that respondent was not aware who was the elected representative after 1989. The entire evidence is not before this Court. The consideration by the Labour Court nowhere shows that there is any specific finding that after 1987 no elections were conducted. It is apparent that burden to show that he continued as an elected representative even after 1989 was upon the respondent. That burden does not appear to have been discharged in the present matter. However, considering the deposition by said employee that he was elected representative even in 1991, I am inclined to give the respondent one opportunity to produce on record the documents to show that he continued as elected representative till 1991. In obedience to interim orders of this Court dated 15.01.2010, the petitioner – employer has already deposited the amount of back wages. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by directing the Labour Court to decide the issue of status of the respondent within specific time. Only for that purpose and to decide that issue, the order dated 16.08.2004 is 3 quashed and set aside. The Complaint (ULPA) No. 111 of 1992 is restored back to the file of Labour Court, Nagpur, for deciding that issue as early as possible and in any case by 30th September 2010. The parties to appear before Labour Court on 30th June 2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. The amount in deposit with the Registry of this Court shall be disbursed as per the orders of Labour Court in Complaint (ULPA) No. 111 of 1992. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.