1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.877 OF 2008 M/s.Pharmax (I) Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Ms.Shobha Nivatkar .. Respondent Mr.P.N.Anavkar with Rahul Oak for petitioner Mr.D.N.Mandavia for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd April 2008 P.C. . Mr.Anavkar appearing for petitioner states that pursuant to the statement made before this Court, the respondent has been allowed to report for work and resume duties by the 2 petitioner’s management at their establishment/Unit at Ghatkopar. She is at present posted at Tunnel department and she will be allotted work there. This is without prejudice arrangement because the petitioner has applied to the second labour court Thane in Reference (IDA) No.7 of 2002 praying that the ex parte award dated 8th October 2003 passed by that Court in the said reference be set aside. The application to set aside the ex parte award and for restoring the main matter has been filed on 3rd October 2005 and is pending. This fact is recorded by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in the impugned Award dated 30th October 2007. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practices under Item 9 Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & PULP Act by not giving effect to and implementing the award of the labour court referred to above. The impugned order further proceeds on the basis that the application for restoration is pending 3 but no orders are passed thereon by the labour court. In such circumstances, the ex parte award binds the petitioner. 2. Above aspects are not seriously disputed. However, the prayer of the management is that it be allowed to pursue its remedies available in law and apply for restoration of the Reference before the second labour court. Reserving all rights therein and keeping open all contentions so also without prejudice thereto, they should implement the impugned order. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent employee does not dispute that she has reported for work and has been allotted duties. However, the grievance is that the employee was working in Injections Department as Checker. Now she is not allowed to report and work in that department. In my view, that aspect is for the management to decide. It is upon the exigencies of work that 4 such postings and allotment is done. Once there is reinstatement in the service but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties, then, this petition need not be kept pending. 4. The issue remains only of backwages which are awarded under the impugned order. Mr.Anavkar, after taking instructions, makes a statement that the quantum of backwages which have been awarded i.e. Rs.1,24,357.54 would be deposited in the second labour court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties and parties would be governed by the final orders on the restoration application. However, the Award computations are made on the basis of a certain period. Now, some more time has gone by. Accordingly a sum of Rs.2 lakhs be deposited in the second labour court within a period of four weeks from today. 5 5. If compliance is not made with the above, then, needless to state that the order passed by the Member Industrial Court becomes operative and in addition to reinstatement the employee is at liberty to apply for implementation and execution of the same in accordance with law. However, if compliance is made, then, parties to abide by the orders of Second Labour Court, Thane subject, of course, to their rights in law. Petition disposed of accordingly. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)