1207wp2582.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2582 OF 2011. The State of Mah. and ors. ..vs.. Dharmaraj Bakaram Uikey and anr. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.S.R.Deshpande, Adv. for the petitioners. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 12th July, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 4/1/2005, passed by the Industrial Court, Buldhana by which the application filed by the petitioners being Revision ULP No.29/2004 came to be partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the award of 50% of the back wages was concerned and judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 24/3/2000 came to be confirmed in so far as grant of reinstatement of the respondent is concerned. 2. The respondent herein claimed to have worked with the petitioners from 1/4/1990 to 1/1/1993 as a Chowkidar and claimed to have completed 240 days in the calender year preceding his termination. It was the case of the respondent that his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1971. It was further the case of the respondent that the persons who were junior to him were retained in service whereas he was not. 1207wp2582.11.odt 2 3. The parties went to trial in the said Complaint ULP No. 180 of 1993. The learned Labour Court recorded a finding on the basis of the material, which included the original Muster Register, that the respondent had completed 240 days in the preceeding calendar year. In so far as violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act are concerned, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the petitioners herein, who were the respondents in the said complaint, had not proved that they had not violated the principle of “last come first go”. The Labour Court, therefore, directed the reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the Labour Court dated 24/3/2003, the petitioners filed a revision application which was numbered as Revision ULP No.29 of 2004 invoking Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. However, as indicated above, the said revision application came to be partly allowed and the direction of the Labour Court in so far as payment of 50% of the back wages was set aside. The Industrial Court in revision confirmed the findings of the Labour Court in so far as the violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act are concerned and did not find any perversity in the findings so recorded. 5. Having perused the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court, in my view no case for interdiction under Articles 226y and 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 6. It is required to be noted that the order of the Industrial Court dated 4/1/2005 is sought to be challenged by way of above petition which has been filed on 3/2/2011 i.e. almost after a period 1207wp2582.11.odt 3 of six years. At least, in matters where the consequences are of a serious nature, it is expected of the State to act with reasonable dispatch. In the instant case, as can be seen, there is a financial liabilitiy, which is on account of the fact that the wages in terms of Clause (iv) of the Order of the Industrial Court have to be paid up to the reinstatement. On account of the gross delay in filing the above petition, this court cannot come to the rescue of the State. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute