1 mss OSWP1623 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2011 M/s. PROPERTY GUARDS SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .. PETITIONERS Vs. PRAKASH BABAJI JAITAPKAR & ANR... RESPONDENTS Mr. P. G. Karande for the petitioners Respondent 1 in person. CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 17/10/2011 P.C. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 18/7/2011, passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 149 of 2010. By this order the application for interim relief has been allowed and the petitioners’-original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to allow respondent No. 1 complainant (employee) to join duty from 10/8/2011 and pay his unpaid wages and allowances from 17/1/2007 till 9/8/2011. 2 mss OSWP1623 2. The matter was adjourned from time to time as the respondent 1- employee is handicapped and was not in a position to report for work outside Mumbai. He was present in the court. He stated throughout that he resides at Sion, Mumbai and he is ready and willing to work at any site in Greater Mumbai. 3. On the last occasion Mr. Karande, learned advocate for the petitioners took time to take instructions and has filed additional affidavit of Subodh Kumar, Legal Manager of Petitioner No. 1, which is taken on record. In this affidavit affirmed on 17/10/2011 , in paragraph 2 this is what is stated: “2. I say that the Respondent No. 1 has not been attending the duty since January, 2007 without any intimation. I say that looking into his physical condition, the Petitioners have adopted sympathetic approach towards him and issued him order to work at Pen, where lodging and boarding is available and the payment is on higher side as compared to our other sites. I say that apart from it the duty structure at Pen site is of less physical hardship and taking into consideration, the physical condition of the Respondent No. 1, he need not have to do continuous standing duty. I say that our other sites in 3 mss OSWP1623 Mumbai involves continuous standing duty. I say that the Respondent No. 1 is not ready to opt for other sites and specifically disclosed that he wanted duty only at the big Cinemas, such as the Respondent No. 2 where payment was on higher side. I say that we are not in a position to offer the Respondent No. 1 duty at the site of the Respondent No. 2 as contract between the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 had expired. I say that in the past, the Petitioners had given option to the Respondent no. 1 to do duty at O.T.C. House, Malad, Mumbai Cricket Association site at Kandivali, M. F. Global City at Malaxmi but the Respondent No. 1 did not respond. I say that the Respondent No. 1 did not respond for more than 3 ½ years and has been indulging in filing false complaints of alleged harassment against the Petitioner No. 1 to extract money.” 4. The 1st respondent-complainant Mr. Prakash Babaji Jaitapkar is present in court and he states that he is ready and willing to work at the site M. F. Global City, Modern Centre, C-Wing, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai. The 1st respondent states that he would report for work tomorrow i.e. on 18/10/2011 at 10 a.m. If he so reports, the petitioners shall allow him to 4 mss OSWP1623 work at this site and pay him the wages in accordance with law. 5. However, for the time being the direction to pay the wages from 17/1/2007 till 9/8/2011 need not be complied with and that part of the order passed by the President, Industrial Court is quashed and set aside. The interim application is made absolute only in terms of direction No. 1 namely to allow the respondent-employee to report for work and that during the pendency of the complaint, the petitioners shall not terminate his services except by due process of law. All contentions of parties are kept open. 6. Further, the 1st respondent-employee shall not be prevented from seeking monetary reliefs in addition to his claim for reinstatement and the contentions of both sides in relation to the past dues and back wages are kept open. 7. Since this is an interlocutory order and the anxiety of the court as also of the 1st respondent-employee was to procure employment that the petition is disposed of in these terms with a clarification that the court has not examined the rival contentions as far as the merits of the complaint are concerned and each of them are kept open. While deciding the complaint, the court below shall not be influenced by any observations in the interim 5 mss OSWP1623 order as they are tentative one and prima facie. 8. In the peculiar facts of this case and when the complaint concerns a handicap employee, an endeavour shall be made to dispose of the main proceedings/complaint as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition disposed off accordingly. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)