1 wp9046.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9046 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9079 OF 2010 ..... Mr. K. G. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for respondents. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 2nd May, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for petitioner and Advocate Mr. Shahane for respondents. 2. Employee in Writ Petition no. 9046 of 2010 worked as Watchmen from 11.10.1989 till 02.02.1991. His termination form subject matter of Reference (IDA ) No. 143 of 1991. 3. Employee in Writ Petition no. 9079 of 2010 was also working as Mail Kamgar from 03.09.1983 till 31.12.1984. His alleged termination constituted subject matter of Reference (IDA) No. 92/1993 before the Labour Court, Aurangabad. 4. In first matter by award dated 21.01.2004 and later matter by award dated 14.08.2002, the Labour Court has set aside the 2 wp9046.10 termination and has directed reinstatement with continuity as also back wages. The petitioners then filed Misc/IDA/Application Nos. 4/2002 and 6/2004 for setting aside those awards and on 5th March, 2009 and 30th October, 2009, those Misc. proceedings have been rejected. 5. Learned A.G.P. contends that the petitioner is the public employer and the matter was not looked into by the concerned Officers properly, and therefore, serious prejudice is caused. He contends that reference about termination in 1984 has been entertained in 1993 in Writ Petition no. 9079/2010. 6. According to Advocate Mr. Shahane, the reasons pressed into service are looked into by the Labour Court. He therefore opposes the Writ Petitions and contends that the petitioner need to be directed to abide by the directions issued by the Labour Court. 7. Length of service put in by both the respondents is very small. Not only this in Writ Petition no. 9079/2010 the reference has been entertained almost after nine years. In this situation, though there are some latches or negligence on the part of the petitioner, that can not be taken advantage of by present respondents. Nature of employment with petitioner is public 3 wp9046.10 employment and it is regulated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, I find that interest of justice can be met with by giving petitioners liberty to prove their contentions on merits by adducing evidence before the Labour Court and by compensating respective respondents by paying them reasonable costs. 8. The petitioners are accordingly directed to start providing work to respective respondents from 1st June, 2011 on daily wages as before during pendency of Reference Proceedings before Labour Court. 9. The petitioners shall also pay costs of Rs. 5000/- to respective respondents by depositing the same before Labour Court, Aurangabad by 30th June, 2011. The respondents shall be free to withdraw the costs. 10. If the work is so provided and costs are so deposited, the Labour Court shall look into the Reference (IDA) No. 143/1991 and Reference (IDA) No. 92/1993 afresh on merits. 11. For that purpose, the respective award dated 21.01.2004 and 14.08.2002 passed therein are quashed and set aside. 4 wp9046.10 Proceedings are restored back to the file of the Labour Court at Aurangabad for fresh adjudication as mentioned above. 12. Needless to mention that consequential orders in Misc. Reference IDA proceedings are also therefore quashed and set aside. 13. If the costs are not so paid or work is not provided, the award dated 21.01.2004 and 14.08.2002 in Reference IDA shall stand revived automatically. 14. Petitions are thus partly allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp9046.10