1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2222 of 2008 (Wasudeo Atmaram Thakur VERSUS The Gadchiroli District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gadchiroli) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Isaac, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Ahirrao, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : November 26, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur, on 28th November, 2007, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. According to the petitioner, the respondent had indulged in unfair labour practices within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour 2 Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner was in the employment of the Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank, since 1961. The complainant was dismissed from service with effect from 28.01.1982. There was a bifurcation of the Bank in the year 1985 and the respondent-Bank being situated in Gadchiroli district, was known as the Gadchiroli District Central Cooperative Bank limited. The petitioner had challenged the termination order dated 28.01.1982 before the Labour Court, vide Complaint (ULP) No. 153/1992. The Labour Court had granted reinstatement with continuity in service, but had denied the relief of back wages to the petitioner. The order was challenged by the respondent before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, by an order dated 7th July, 1995, remanded the matter to the Labour Court for deciding the two preliminary issues; 3 (i) Whether the petitioner was a workman?, and (ii) Whether the petitioner could have sought the relief vide Government order dated 06.11.1985 against the Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank? After the remand of the matter for deciding the aforesaid two issues only, the Labour Court decided the issues and the complaint by the judgment dated 04.10.1996. By the judgment dated 04.10.1996, the petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. In a revision preferred by the respondent against the judgment dated 04.10.1996, the reinstatement order was confirmed, but the order granting back wages was set aside. The order passed by the Industrial Court in revision attained finality as a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the denial of back wages, was dismissed by this Court. 4 In the present complaint filed before the Labour Court, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was liable to pay the salary/back wages to the petitioner from 13.05.1993 to 04.10.1996, as the petitioner was not permitted to join his duties in spite of the order of reinstatement in his favour. The respondent had filed a reply to the complaint and had stated therein that the lis between the parties was pending in the Courts and,therefore, the petitioner was not reinstated in service. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner had also not approached the respondent for joining his duties. On considering the evidence on record, the Industrial Court, by the impugned order dated 28.11.2007, dismissed the complaint. Though the reasons on which the complaint was dismissed, cannot be justified, but the Industrial Court, Chandrapur, has not committed any mistake in dismissing the complaint. It is necessary to note that in the first round of litigation, the Labour 5 Court had granted reinstatement to the petitioner by the judgment dated 13.05.1993. The Industrial Court had, by the order dated 7th July, 1995, remanded the matter to the Labour Court to decide the two basic questions about the petitioner being a workman and about the entitlement of the petitioner to seek the relief against the Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank, in view of the Government order dated 06.11.1985. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent Gadchiroli District Central Cooperative Bank Limited was not joined as a party to the complaint filed by the petitioner till the year 1995 though since the year 1985, the same was bifurcated. It is further rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent Bank that neither was the respondent-Bank joined as a party till the matter was remanded by the Industrial Court by the order dated 07.07.1995 nor did the petitioner approach the respondent for joining his duties. It was observed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in 6 the impugned order that the petitioner had not filed any document on record to show that he had worked with Gadchiroli District Central Cooperative Bank at any point of time or had even approached the said bank for reinstatement after 13.05.1993. It appears from the record that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent-Bank had not permitted the petitioner to join his duties in spite of the order of reinstatement in his favour. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court, Chandrapur was justified in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. No fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court on 28.11.2007. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE