1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application No. 156 of 2010 IN Letters Patent Appeal St. No.20664 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No.1321 of 2009 [decided] [Dy. Engineer, Public Works Department, Tirora Vs. Labour Court & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. G.G. Bade, Adv., for the appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 26th February, 2010. 1. This Court is of considered view that if on hearing the appeal, the same is found to have some merit, then only respondent no.2 be called by issuing a notice. If this course is adopted, it would prevent unnecessary vexing the respondent no.2. 2. We have, therefore, called the appellant to address the Court on merits of appeal. 3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. G.G. Bade for the appellant. 2 4. The appellant herein was directed to reinstate the respondent no.2 with full back- wages by Award dated 31st January, 2002 passed in Ref. IDA No. 3 of 1995. 5. Said Award was challenged in the Writ Petition on or about 13th Feb., 2009 6. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition, which reads as follows:- “10. ........................... ........It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 was reinstated under E.G.S. in pursuance of impugned Award dated 31.1.2002 of learned Trial Court. Respondent No.2, at the time of reinstatement gave assurance to the petitioner that he shall not claim back wages. However recently Respondent No.2 claimed any back wages due to which the petitioner did not approach this Hon'ble Court earlier.” 7. It is seen that any narration as regards the person or officer to whom or before whom the oral undertaking was given by the respondent to the effect that when reinstated, he shall forego the claim towards arrears of back-wages, and as to how the officer concerned was misled, and has relied upon such oral undertaking. 8. This story telling did not inspire any confidence in the mind of learned Single Judge, who dismissed the Writ Petition, against which present Letters Patent Appeal is filed. 3 9. If at all the workman had foregone the back wages, it was in the nature of contracting out, and such relinquishment could have been possible and permissible if done before the Court in the form of a compromise. 10. After hearing the appellant, this Court is of considered view that the appellant has couched a pleading like tell-tale. 11. It is not shown that the conclusions reached by learned Single Judge are erroneous. 12. We too subscribe to the views taken by learned Single Judge. 13. In this situation, when the appeal itself is seen to be without merit, the exercise of calling him before this Court on the application for condonation of delay would cause sheer injustice to him. 14. Therefore, as appeal itself is merit- less, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau|