1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3111 OF 2010 (The CEO, ZP, Bhandara & Anr. vs. Shri Ramesh Bodhan Choudhari) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 04, 2010. Heard Shri Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bhure, learned counsel for the respondent. After hearing respective counsel, it has become clear that as per the common judgment delivered on 12.01.2005 by the Industrial Court, Bhandara, in Complaint ULPA No. 97 of 2003, the respondent needed to be brought on CRTE with effect from 27.01.2000. The petitioner employer while forwarding the proposal for obtaining sanction in this respect mentioned the date as “20.01.1986”. The employee then filed proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to claim the benefits for the period from 27.01.2000. In those proceedings, the proposal forwarded by the employer was also tendered as evidence and Labour Court acted upon it. With the result, the employee indirectly got benefit from a wrong date i.e. 20.01.1986. When the claim made by the employee was itself as per judgment of the Industrial 2 Court from 27.01.2000, it is apparent that this grant from earlier date is unsustainable. However, Shri Bhure, learned counsel has pointed out that when the Industrial Court delivered the earlier common judgment in 2005, the Government Resolution dated 24.04.2001 was not pointed out to the Industrial Court and was suppressed by the employer. According to him, as per that resolution after putting in five years of continuous service, an employee becomes entitled to be brought on CRTE. He contends that the respondent got knowledge of this Government Resolution / policy decision in 2010 and hence the respondent should be given an opportunity to point out his entitlement to CRTE status after completing said five years of service. Shri Verma, learned counsel contends that the judgment of the Industrial Court was never questioned and the Industrial Court has noted that though the employee is given continuity by Labour Court from 1988, he did not work from 1988 till 27.01.2000 and hence the Industrial Court chosen said date for giving benefit. He has, therefore, urged that the respondent may at the most be given liberty to challenge this judgment of Industrial Court. I find that the respondent is now about 50 years old. He was earlier terminated and that termination was questioned by him before the Labour Court. The employee has been in service from 3 15.05.1985 and in such situation again forcing him to face a fresh round of litigation for getting the mistake corrected from this Court will not meet the ends of justice. The employee, therefore, needs to be given an opportunity to point out his entitlement to CRTE status from the earlier date in the light of policy decision dated 24.04.2001. The learned Member of Industrial Court has not considered this policy decision or its impact in the matter. It is made clear that this Court has also not recorded any verdict about the effect of said policy decision dated 24.04.2001 in the matter. If the respondent – employee files a complaint claiming CRTE status accordingly from the said date, the Industrial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of nine months from the date of its filing. Subject to this, as the order of Labour Court passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is found to be unsustainable, the same is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE *GS.