1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 340 OF 1991 1. The Regional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad. 2. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Beed. 3. The General Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay. .. .. Appellants (Orig. Respondents) Versus Sk. Gulab S/o Ahmed, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o : at present Manjalgaon, District Beed. .. .. Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) Shri A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri F. R. Tandale, Advocate for the sole Respondent. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard both the counsels extensively. The appellants/ Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation feel aggrieved by the order in application No. 45 of 1980 decided by authority under Payment of Wages Act/Labour Court Aurangabad directing the appellants herein by order dated 19.06.1986 to pay Rs. 61,292.04 to the employee/the respondent herein Shaikh Gulab together with compensation of Rs. 50/-. The appellants/M.S.R.T.C. challenged the order before learned District Judge Beed being Regular Civil Appeal No. 196/1986 by judgment and order dated 26.07.1991 learned District Judge upheld the directions issued by the learned Labour Court of payment of wages as sought by the driver/the respondent herein. This order is subject to challenge in the second appeal. 2. The appeal was admitted on 26.07.1991 without formulating any substantial question of Law. 3. During the course of submissions counsel for the appellants/M.S.R.T.C. canvased that ground No. 2 should be the substantial question of Law which reads as under : ii. That, the substantial question arises in the appeal is that if in a suit all the reliefs available are not claimed can 3 the plaintiff file a second sect of litigation for the remaining reliefs. In the present case the respondent while claiming that his dismissal was illegal, he did not claimed the back wages therefore, after the decision in the suit his claim for back wages was not at all tenable and therefore, the courts below ought to have dismissed the application of the respondent ? 4. Since this Court is handicapped for want of any substantial question of law being formulated above question/point needs to be answered. 5. The series of litigation has indeed made the life of driver/respondent miserable. He was dismissed from service. He was required to knock for reliefs and consequently by order in Civil Appeal No. 196/1986 learned District Judge recorded following order, " The appeal is allowed. The order of the Trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside and declared to be wrongful, null and void and the plaintiff shall be deemed to be in service as a bus driver until a proper inquiry is started against him by the competent authority and his services are lawfully terminated." 6. Counsel for the driver/respondent informs no departmental enquiry was conducted against him to enable M.S.R.T.C. to take decision under the Law. The Court recorded the dismissal of the driver/respondent was wrongful, null and void and he shall be deemed 4 to be in service accordingly he will be entitle to claim wages. The definition of wages under Section 2 (VI) of the Payment of Wages Act is as under : "Wages" means all remuneration whether by way of salary, allowances, or other wise expressed, in terms of money or capable of being so expresses, in terms of money or capable of being so expresses,which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or orders of court; b) Any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work of holidays or any leave period ". 7. There could not be a quarrel on the definition and its scope and existential character. It was in this scenario, the learned Labour Judge entertained the petition of the driver for the compensation/wages. The learned District Judge considering the evidence and the earlier observations made by the District Judge, justifiably recorded driver/respondent was entitled for back wages, as he was not legally terminated. The observations of both the Courts cannot be said to be erroneous. 8. If the available reliefs are not claimed, whether the driver can file 5 second set of litigations for remaining reliefs, needs to be scanned. 9. This is matter of record the driver while seeking relief i. e. his dismissal was illegal, he could not have claimed back wages, however fact remained within the terminology seeking dismissal illegal, there is no arrangement to consider payment of wages for the period under which he was under termination. There was no specific order denying such back wages to the driver, it is difficult to accept that such prayers were rejected or that he was not entitled for wages. It was the M.S.R.T.C. which was required to remittance all back wages, which it do failed. Consequently, the driver was forced to approach learned Labour Judge. There was no fetter for driver to claim wages by approaching Labour Judge. It is pertinent, his dismissal was treated to be illegal, department though was allowed to hold enquiry and take a decision, displayed apathy, hence cannot agitate its liability for wages. The liability of making back wages being legal and in tune with entitlement of the driver/respondent, the second appeal lacks merit. It is rejected. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL, ] JUDGE bsb/June09/SA 340.91