WP/4824/1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4824 OF 1997 Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibag, Raigad & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Sujata Kashinath Salunke & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. C.G. Gavnekar with Mr. Hiranandani for the Petitioners. Mr. M.R. Deshpande for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP, for Respondent No.5. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 24 TH JANUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. The Writ Petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Labour Court, Thane on 17th July, 1997 in Complaint No.COM/ULP/427/96. By this order, the Labour Court has held that the petitioners have committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short, “the MRTU & PULP Act”). The Labour Court has directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondents-workmen with continuity of service and full back-wages. WP/4824/1997 2 2. While admitting the Petition, this Court has issued rule restricted to the extent of the award of full back-wages to the respondents-workmen. Thus, the Petition regarding the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondents-workmen has been rejected at the stage of admission of the Writ Petition. 3. The facts in brief are as follows : . The respondents-workmen were appointed as “Auxiliary Nurse / Midwife”. They were appointed for 29 days at a stretch after which they were given a break in service. This happened regularly from 1987, when they were appointed, till their services were terminated. It appears that on 9th February, 1988, a Selection Board was constituted by the State of Maharashtra. The State of Maharashtra further directed that recruitment for the Class III and Class IV posts of the Zilla Parishad should be made only through the Selection Board. It appears that in view of the powers vested in the Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad to recruit employees temporarily, the petitioners appointed the respondents-workmen. The last such order of appointment was passed on 18th May, 1996 when they were appointed for a period of six months. Their services came to an end on 1st November, 1996. A complaint was filed by the respondents-workmen before the Labour Court under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. That complaint was WP/4824/1997 3 decided ex-parte by the Labour Court. The petitioners did not care to remain present, though served. The Labour Court passed the impugned order on 17th July, 1997. 4. Instead of seeking an order setting aside the ex-parte order or challenging the order of the Labour Court in revision, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition. 5. Mr. Gavnekar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that there is no pleading whatsoever in the complaint about the respondents- workmen’s unemployment after the date of termination of their services. He submits that unless there is a pleading and the fact of unemployment is proved, the respondents-workmen are not entitled to back-wages. 6. The learned Advocate for the respondents-workmen points out the affidavits filed by them before the Labour Court wherein each of them have pleaded that they did not have any other source of income. In my opinion, these averments in the affidavits are sufficient proof of the respondents-workmen being unemployed after their services were terminated. It is true that the complaint does not bear any such pleading. The complaint was filed within a month of the respondents-workmen being terminated from services and, therefore, obviously WP/4824/1997 4 there would not be any such pleading. However, the averments in the affidavits are sufficient to hold that the respondents-workmen were unemployed after their services were terminated. As the petitioners were not represented, these averments were unchallenged. The Labour Court, in my view, has not committed any error by accepting this evidence. 7. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 17th July, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Thane in Complaint No. COM/ULP/427/96 is upheld and the Writ Petition is dismissed. 8. Rule discharged. No costs. 9. The amounts deposited in this Court by the petitioners are permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents-workmen, together with the accrued interest.