1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6067 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5042 OF 1999 Avchit s/o Kautik Patil ... APPLICANT VERSUS Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri V.Y. Patil, Advocate for the applicant (original respondent) Shri D.R. Shelke, Advocate for non-applicant (original petitioner) - absent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 18TH JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1. Perused. Heard Shri V.Y. Patil, learned counsel for the applicant. It is to be noted that Shri D.R. Shelke, learned counsel for non- applicant remained absent in spite of service of copy of the notice of the present application on 23.6.2009. 2. The applicant has preferred application for the grant of retirement benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, periodical increments, pension and other benefits from the non-applicant. 2 3. The applicant submits that, the non-applicant herein has filed the Writ petition No.5042/1999, assailing the judgment and order dated 13.4.1998 passed by learned Labour Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No. 292/1993, thereby directing the non-applicant herein to reinstate the applicant/ complainant in service with continuity of service from the date of termination within one month from the date of passing of the said order. However, the prayer of the applicant/ complainant for back wages was rejected as he had given up the right to claim the back wages by filing purshis (Exhibit U-21). In the said Writ Petition, Rule was granted vide order dated 13.9.2001, but no interim relief was granted. Accordingly, the applicant herein was reinstated in the service by the non-applicant herein and even he has retired on 30.4.2008. Hence, it is the contention of the applicant that although Rule was granted in Writ Petition No.5042/1999 vide order dated 13.9.2001, no interim was granted therein and accordingly since the applicant herein was reinstated, he is entitled for the retirement benefits such as proportionate gratuity, provident fund, increments, if any, and pension and other benefits in view of the order dated 13.4.1998 passed by the Labour Court subject to the final decision of the present Writ Petition. 4. In that view of the matter, I find that there should be no impediment in granting the relief of provisional retiral benefits such as proportionate gratuity and proportionate provident fund and proportionate pension to the applicant herein. 3 5. The application is, therefore, allowed. The non-applicant (original petitioner) is directed to grant the provisional retiral benefits to the applicant/employee (original respondent in the Writ Petition) including the proportionate provident fund, proportionate gratuity and proportionate pension. However, it is made clear that this order shall be subject to the result and final decision in the Writ Petition No.5042/1999. 6. It is further directed that the applicant shall furnish an undertaking to the non-applicant that he shall refund the amount, if found due, at the stage of final hearing of the Writ Petition No.5042/1999. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/ca6067.09