1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1510 of 2009 Subhash Ramkrishna Patil ..Petitioner vs. M/s Shirala Taluka Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.& anr. .Respondents Mr.Mahesh Shukla for petitioner. Mr.Rahul Nerlekar i/b Mr.A.M.Nathani for respondent no.1 CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 5th October, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by the First Labour Court, Mumbai in Application (IDA) No.263 of 2006. By the impugned order the First Labour Court, Mumbai 2 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under sec. 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the respondent claiming that he was its full time employee who received his wages less than those prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner s case before the First Labour Court was that he was employed in the opponent Co-operative Credit Society on the post of a peon from 1st June, 1998 and his last drawn wages were Rs.1565/- p.m. The said application was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner was not a regular or permanent employee of the respondent as claimed by him. 3 The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent on 1st September, 2004 which termination was challenged by the petitioner before the 5th 3 Labour Court, Mumbai. The 5th Labour Court, Mumbai by its order dated 19th June, 2009 has directed the respondent to reinstate the complainant to his original post with effect from 1st September, 2004 with continuity of service and full back wages within one month from the date of the said order. Against the said order of 5th Labour Court, dated 19th June, 2009 the respondent had preferred a revision application before the Industrial Court which by its order 11th September, 2009 except for granting 50% of back wages instead of the full back wages, confirmed the order passed by the 5th Labour Court. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has further contended that from the said orders dated 19th June, 2009 and 11th September, 2009 passed by the 5th Labour Court, Mumbai and the Industrial Court, respectively it is clear that the petitioner has been in permanent employment of the respondent since 4 the year 1998. Therefore, the 1st Labour Court by its order dated 2nd September, 2008 has erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a regular or permanent employee of the respondent and the application of the petitioner under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable unless the petitioner first moves the appropriate Court/forum for determination of the issue pertaining to the employer employee relationship. In response to the aforesaid the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was not a regular or permanent employee of the respondent for the period June 1998 upto 30th March, 2004. The respondent admits that on and from 1st April, 2004 the petitioner was accepted as a regular employee of the respondent. The issue determined by the 5th Labour Court, Mumbai as well as the Industrial Court by the said 5 orders dated 19th June, 2009 and 11th September,2009 respectively pertain only to the period subsequent to the termination of the petitioner by the respondent i.e. on 1st September, 2004 and not the period between June 1998 to August 2004. 4 In view of the aforesaid submissions/contentions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties the following order is passed in the above writ petition by consent of the parties. i) The impugned order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by the 1st Labour Court, Mumbai is set aside. ii) The 1st Labour Court, Mumbai shall after hearing the parties and after considering the orders passed by the 5th Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court dated 19th June, 2009 and 11th September, 2009 respectively give its decision within 16 weeks from today in application (IDA) No.263 6 of 2006. iii) Parties shall not be allowed to lead any fresh evidence in the matter. iv) All contentions of the petitioner as well as the respondent are kept open. 5 Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)