1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra } Through the Executive Engineer } Public Works Division, Nanded, } .... PETITIONER District : Nanded. } (ORI.RESPONDENT) V E R S U S Namdeo Kalba Kagade } At Post : Kushnar, Tq. Biloli, } .... RESPONDENT District : Nanded. } (ORI.APPLICANT) Mr. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for Petitioner- State. Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Counsel for Respondent . [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14/08/2009 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 20/08/2009 JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the final Judgment and Order dated 31/12/2003 passed by the learned 2 Judge, Labour Court, Jalna in Reference (IDA) No. 36 of 1992. By the said Award, the Reference came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service. 2. The Respondent herein was working as labourer/gangman and was performing duties till 31/3/1979. He was terminated by Order dated 31/3/1979. Consequent to the dispute/claim raised in respect of his termination by the respondent, Reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication of the said dispute/claim raised by the respondent. The said Reference came to be numbered as Reference (IDA) No. 36 of 1992. The said Reference proceeded ex-parte in view of the fact that the petitioner herein did not file its Written Statement and same Reference came to be allowed on 31/12/2003. The above mentioned petition has been filed by the petitioner on 20/9/2005 i.e. after lapse of one to one and half years. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the Order passed by this Court on 17/10/2007 and submitted that in the identical set of facts, this Court has declined to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the present petitioner and same was dismissed by Order dated 17/10/2007. The learned counsel made available a copy of the said Order for perusal. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the petitioner has not disputed this position and fairly 3 conceded that the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 495 of 2008 are almost identical. But, in the instant case, A.G.P. submitted that Labour Court has directed reinstatement with 50 % back wages from 11/5/1992 till actual reinstatement. Therefore, learned A.G.P. would submit that there was no reason for the Labour Court to take different view in this matter and grant 50 % back wages . 4. While entertaining this Writ Petition, this Court by Order dated 17/10/2007 granted Rule in the matter and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘ D ’. Today the matter is taken for final hearing and after hearing A.G.P. for the petitioner – State and learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the pleadings in Writ Petition No. 495 of 2006 and Order passed thereon on 17/10/2007 by this Court, I am of the considered view that the controversy raised in the present petition is similar to that of in Writ Petition No. 495 of 2006. It appears that even the Labour Court decided the Reference of the Respondent herein and Respondent therein on the same date. On comparison of the facts and all other points involved in this petition with Writ Petition No. 495 of 2006 and Order dated 17/10/2007 passed in said Writ Petition, this Petition is required to be rejected. It is not disputed by the A.G.P. that the facts situation in that case and in the present case are almost identical. 4 5. In view of the fact that back wages are not awarded in other two identical cases, I find considerable force in the arguments of the learned A.G.P. and I find that the Labour Court was not justified in granting 50 % back wages to the respondent when same are denied to two other similarly situated persons, who are the respondents in Writ Petition No. 495 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 674 of 2006. 6. In view of discussion hereinabove, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent that direction by the Judge, Labour Court, Jalna to pay 50 % back wages to the respondent is set aside. Rest of the Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court on 31/12/2003 impugned in this petition is confirmed. It is made clear that since this Court has taken a view in identical set of facts and law involved therein and dismissed the Writ Petition No. 495 of 2006, this Writ Petition is disposed of and only to the extent of direction of the Labour Court to pay 50 % back wages, same is set aside. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Civil applications stands disposed of in view of the disposal of the main Writ Petition. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP675.06