1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6660 OF 2008 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ..Petitioner. Vs. Raju Bagirao Mane ..Respondent. .... Smt. N.V. Masurkar i/b Mr. V.S. Masurkar for the Petitioner. Mr. A.A. Garge for the Respondent. .... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4027 OF 2008 Raju Bagirao Mane ..Petitioner. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ..Respondent. .... Mr. A.A. Garge for the Petitioner. Smt. N.V. Masurkar i/b Mr. V.S. Masurkar for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 29th September, 2008. P.C. : 1. A reference to adjudication was made to the Labour Court at Kolhapur on 20th May, 2003 in regard to the legality of the termination of the services of the workman. The Labour Court 2 made its award on 6th February, 2007. By the award the Labour Court declined to grant the prayer for reinstatement on the ground that though the workman was in continuous service of seven years, the appointment itself was not made following due process of law. However, a compensation of Rs.25,000/- was ordered in lieu of reinstatement. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - the employer moved an application for setting aside the award contending that it had not received notice of the proceedings or summons in the reference. The application was made on 22nd May, 2007. The Labour Court while disposing of the application entered a finding of fact that the employer had no notice of the proceedings. However, the Court was of the view that the application under Rule 26 for setting aside the award was not within limitation and therefore the application was liable to be rejected. 2. The workman has filed a petition challenging the award insofar as it denies reinstatement. The management has in its petition challenged the original award of 6th February, 2007 and the order of the Labour Court declining to set aside the award. 3 3. At the hearing of the proceedings, counsel appearing for the workman has fairly agreed that it would be appropriate and proper if the award of the Labour Court dated 6th February, 2007 is set aside without the expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the rival contentions and the reference is restored to the file of the Labour Court. Learned counsel, however, prayed that this should be subject to the payment of costs. In view of the fair attitude shown before this Court on behalf of the workman, it is only appropriate and proper that the proceedings are remitted back to the Labour Court so as to furnish to the management an opportunity of pleading its defence before the Labour Court. This, however, should be subject to the payment of costs particularly since it would appear from paragraph six of the order dated 21st September, 2007 that the management had in fact addressed a letter on 30th June, 2003 mentioning the letter of reference. In the circumstances, the Petitions are allowed in the following terms : i) By consent the award of the Labour Court dated 6th 4 February, 2007 is set aside; ii) Reference (IDA) No.57 of 2003 is restored to the file of the Labour Court; iii) This shall be subject to the payment of costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- which shall be a condition precedent. Costs shall be paid to the workman, Raju Bagirao Mane within a period of two weeks from today; iv) Parties shall appear before the Labour Court for receiving directions on 13th October, 2008; v) It would be open to the management to file its written statement before the Labour Court within such period as may be allowed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall proceed to dispose of the reference upon remand within a period of six months. 5 Both the Petitions shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. *****