1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3078/2011 ZILLA PARISHAD WARDHA ..VS.. BALKRISHNA SHENDE AND ANOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.D. Meghe, adv for petitioner Mr. M.R. Rajgure, adv for R-1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2011. By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 8.12.2011 holding that the petitioner Zilla Parishad has engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act by withholding the benefits of continuity of service during the period of suspension and the period post termination till reinstatement. Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court ought not have entertained the complaint filed by the respondent as by the said complaint filed in the year 2006 the respondent was seeking a proper fixation of his pay by setting aside the order passed by the Zilla Parishad on 10.7.1978. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint was belatedly filed after a period of 28 years and the same ought to have been dismissed on this count only. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in (1997)3 SCC Page 636 to canvass that an acquittal of an employee in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a person to back wages, pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits on his reinstatement where suspension is ordered pending criminal case. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the complaint and the judgment dated 8.12.2010, it appears that the Industrial Court did not commit any error in entertaining the complaint and declaring that the petitioners had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. Though the order was passed on 10.7.1978, by the authorities, treating the period from 1.6.1968 to 16.5.1991, total 1112 days as extraordinary leave without pay, it is necessary to note that an application was filed by the respondent under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of dues. It was canvassed in the proceedings under section 33(C)(2) that the order dated 10.7.1978 was illegal and without jurisdiction. In those proceedings, the Second Labour Court had partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.39,923/- to the respondent towards the difference in wages for a particular period. The order passed by the Second Labour Court on 2.8.1997 was challenged by the petitioner in 3 Writ Petition No.168/1998. After the writ petition was dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the petitioners and the said Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. It is in this background that the respondent has sought for the proper fixation of his pay, which was wrongfully recorded in his service book. Since this was not done, the complaint was filed by the respondent in the year 2008. In this background it cannot be said that there is an unexplained delay of 28 years in filing the complaint before the Industrial Court. On merits of the matter, the Industrial Court considered the evidence of the witness of the petitioner in his cross examination that during the period of respondent’s suspension and dismissal the annual increments were not given and barring this the entire service record of the respondent was correct and the respondent had got the legitimate dues. The Industrial Court considered the provisions of Rule 71(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct & Discipline) Rules 1971 to hold that the respondent was entitled to seek the benefit under the said rules. On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Industrial Court held that the respondent was entitled to proper fixation of his pay and was also entitled to continuity of service during the period of suspension and from his termination till his reinstatement. The order passed by the Industrial Court is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The 4 judgment reported in (1997) 3 SCC Page 636 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP