IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5461 OF 1997 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai- C.S.T. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Solapur Division, Having office at Solapur – 413 001. .... Petitioners V/s. 1. David P. Tribhuvan, Residing at House No.165, Shastry Nagar, Moulali Chock, Behind Mamta Bakery, Solapur – 413 003. 2. The Hon'ble Shri P.D.Apshankar, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Mumbai, having its Office at, 4th Floor, City Ice Building, 298, P. Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 3. Shri Gyanendra Singh, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Kaul Building, Gurunanak Nagar, Shankarseth Road, Pune – 411 042. .... Respondents Mr.Rajiv L. Patil i/by A.N.Samant, for the petitioners. Mr.P.J.Thorat, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2 CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATED : 25TH MARCH, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : - 1. The appellant had challenged the Award dated 10-02-1992 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Bombay. 2. The respondent has been directed to be reinstated with effect from 18-07-1978 with full back wages and continuity of service, in spite of the fact that his prayer before the Tribunal was that he be reinstated with effect from 11-12-1980. Mr.Rajiv Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that this is a patent illegality on the basis of the Award. The learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to justify the Award directing reinstatement with effect from a date from which the respondent himself had not made the prayer. Hence, it is obvious that the order if otherwise valid, must be directed to take effect from 11-12-1980. 3. Apart from the above, it appears that the Award does not call for any interference. The respondent has been found to have attained the status of a regular workman when his services were terminated on 11- 12-1980. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 has found that the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which require the employer to prepare the list of all 3 workmen from the category from which retrenchment is contemplated and further display on the notice board the details of all the vacancies and intimation of all vacancies by registered post to every one of the retrenched workman before filing up the vacancies. The finding particularly in regard to Rule 78 is supported by a clear finding of all dates on which the respondent has been employed over a long period. 3. In the result, the Award is upheld save to the extent that it directs reinstatement with effect from the year 1978. The Award shall stand modified to the effect that the respondent shall stand reinstated with continuity of service and back wages with effect from 11-12-1980. Order accordingly. ( S.A.BOBDE, J. )