WP/1861/2000 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1861 OF 2000 The Managing Director Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur ... Petitioner V/s. Kallappa Narasappa Sangale & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.S. Topkar for Petitioner Mr.K.S. Bapat for Respondent No.1 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – formal parties a/w WRIT PETITION NO.6476 OF 1999 Kallappa Narasappa Sangale & Ors. ... Petitioner V/s. The Managing Director Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur ... Respondents Mr.K.S. Bapat for Petitioner Mr.M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.1 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – formal parties CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. These two petitions have been heard together as they challenge the same orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial court in Application (BIR) No.24 of 1982. The Labour Court has allowed the application and set aside the order of dismissal passed against the employee and directed that he should be reinstated WP/1861/2000 : 2 : with continuity of service but without backwages. Both the employer and the employee filed appeals before the Industrial Court. These appeals were dismissed on 4.10.1999. 2. The brief facts involved in the present case are as follows: The employee who has filed Writ Petition No.6476 of 1999 was employed by the Karkhana which is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.61 of 2000 from 1.12.1969. He was working as a wireman from 16.12.1972. It appears that he was chargesheeted and disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him. Pursuant to the enquiry the services of the employee were dismissed. Aggrieved by that decision, the employee preferred Application (BIR) No.24 of 1982 seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Labour Court held that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation and therefore dismissed the same. 3. The employee preferred Appeal (IC) No.16 of 9185 which was also dismissed by the Industrial Court confirming the order of the Labour Court. The employee then filed Writ Petition No.3512 of 1995. Both the orders of the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court were set aside and the application was restored to file before the Labour Court. However, this Court directed that the employee would not be entitled to backwages from 7.6.1985 to 7.2.1995. This was because the employee had taken no steps to approach this Court for almost 10 years after the Industrial Court had dismissed his appeal. 4. The Labour Court on remand held that the employee had committed a misconduct by retaining the keys to the powerhouse with him, without prior sanction. WP/1861/2000 : 3 : However, the Labour Court found that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and, therefore he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages. 5. Being aggrieved by the order both the employee as well as the Karkhana filed appeals before the Industrial Court u/s 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. During the pendency of the appeal, the order of the Labour Court was stayed by the Industrial Court on condition that the Karkhana deposited the monthly wages of the employee periodically from March 1996 while the appeal was pending. Accordingly, the Karkhana has deposited the amount as directed. 6. On 4.10.1999, the Industrial Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the Labour Court. It further directed that the salary deposited by the Karkhana should be returned. Hence, the present petitions. 7. It appears that this Court while admitting the petitions, had directed the Industrial Court to invest the amount which was deposited by the Karkhana in a nationalised bank or a scheduled bank initially for a period of three years which was to be renewed thereafter for the same period if necessary. Unfortunately it is evident that this direction has been flouted and the amount has not been invested though retained with the Industrial Court. 8. I have perused both the impugned orders, passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court and I find that the order refusing payment of backwages for the entire period as a punishment is too harsh. The charge against the employee WP/1861/2000 : 4 : was that he retained the keys of the powerhouse without the knowledge of the superiors. Admittedly, the employee was a wireman and the keys of the powerhouse were with him because of his nature of work. There is no evidence on record that there was any theft, or any other act due to which the employer as been caused losses because the employee had retained the keys. In these circumstances, in my view, the employee was wrongly deprived of his backwages. However, he will not be entitled to the backwages for the period from 7.6.1985 to 7.2.1995 as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The employee has already attained the age of superannuation. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct that the amount which has been deposited by the Karkhana in the Labour Court should be disbursed to the employee. 9. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. The amount which has been deposited by the Karkhana in the Industrial Court in Appeal No.2 of 1996 shall be disbursed to the employee together with the accrued interest. 10. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. 11. The Registry to enquire with the Industrial Court, Kolhapur as to why the order dated 10.4.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.6476 of 1999 has not been implemented by the Industrial Court in respect of clause (v) of the order. Explanation to be furnished within four weeks from today.