1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5325 OF 2009 Sudam Bapu Kamble & Ors. ..... Petitioners. V/s The Executive Engineer, Tillari Dam Division, through- 1. The Executive Engineer Tillari Dam Division No.1, Konalkatta, Tal. Dodamarg, Dist. Sindhudurg & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. Anand S. Patil for the petitioners. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Labour Court dated 6/10/1994 whereby the Labour Court was pleased to direct the respondents herein to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service. However, it granted compensation to the tune of Rs 5000/- each towards back- 2 wages. Thereafter, the respondents challenged the order of reinstatement by filing revision application in the Industrial Court. The said revision application filed by the respondents herein, however, was dismissed. Petitioners herein were, thereafter, reinstated by the respondents. At that time, they gave an undertaking to the respondents that they would not claim back-wages. However, after the lapse of 12 years, the petitioners herein filed revision application in the Industrial Court vide Revision Application No(ULP) Nos. 33 to 45 of 2007. This revision application was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 5/12/2008 inter alia on the ground that there was gross delay of almost 12 years in filing the revision application and that no satisfactory explanation was given by the petitioners for delay caused in filing the application and, secondly, on the ground that the Labour Court has scrutinized the evidence on record and had held that the petitioners herein had failed to establish that they were not gainfully employed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have not given cogent reasons for not awarding back-wages to the petitioners herein. 3 In support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Madhumati Atchut Parab vs. Shri. Rajaram V. Parab & Ors., reported in 2009(3) ALL MR 486. 4. In my view, submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Both, the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court have, after taking into consideration the material on record, held that the petitioners did not plead that they were not gainfully employed after their termination and that they had taken efforts to find an alternative employment but had failed to get the employment during this period. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Smt. Madhumati Atchut Parab (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not apply to the facts of the present case since, in the present case, there is gross delay of 12 years in filing the revision application against the order passed by the Labour Court which had refused to grant full back-wages. Secondly, an undertaking also had been given by the petitioners when they were reinstated that they would not claim back-wages. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the 4 order of reinstatement dated 6/10/1994 was passed by the Labour Court, the petitioners, in fact, were not reinstated for a period of 2 years and 4 months. He submits that the petitioners are entitled to get back-wages for the said period. The said submission also cannot be accepted. Petitioners are at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings if so advised for non- compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court by the respondents herein. 6. In the result, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Petition is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J)