1 wp-2062-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 2062 OF 2010. M/s. Trig Detective Private Limited & Anr. ..Petitioners. v/s. Ram Naresh Verma & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Mahesh A. Shukla, for Petitioners. Mr. Milind More, AGP, for Respondents. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 4TH OCTOBER 2010. P.C. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have sought setting aside of the impugned Awards dated 20th March 1998 and 30th October 2001 passed by the Seventh Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No. 393 of 1993 and also Judgments dated 4th June 2008 and 24th November 2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 440 of 2005 and Recovery Application No. 17 of 2008, respectively. 2. By an Award dated 20th March 1998 after hearing the Advocates appearing for the Petitioners as well as the Respondents, 2 wp-2062-10 the Seventh Labour Court, Mumbai directed the Petitioners to reinstate the Respondent No.1 with immediate effect. It was recorded in the Award that the issue pertaining to the back wages payable by the Petitioners to the Respondent No.1 will be decided later i.e. after considering the arguments advanced by the parties. The Petitioners did not impugn the said Award. The Petitioners also failed and neglected to comply with the said Award. 3. By another Award dated 30th October 2001, the Seventh Labour Court at Mumbai after hearing the Advocates for the parties directed the Petitioners to pay back wages to the Respondent No.1 from 19th November 1991 till 29th March 1998. Even this Award was not challenged by the Petitioners. The Petitioners again failed and neglected to comply with the directions given in the said Award. 4. Respondent No.1 therefore, filed Complaint (ULP) No. 440 of 2005 alleging unfair labour practice under section 28 read with Items 9 and 10 of Schedule – IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court, Mumbai, after hearing the Advocates for the parties by its Judgment dated 4th June 2008, directed the Petitioners to cease and desist from the unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule-IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and to take affirmative action by reinstating the Respondent No.1 in service 3 wp-2062-10 and by making payment of full back wages to the Respondent No.1 from the date of his termination i.e. 19th November 1991 till the date of actual reinstatement in service with continuity of service. The Petitioners were further directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same. The Petitioners were also directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent No.1. The Petitioners did not challenge the said Judgment and Order dated 4th June 2008. 5. Since the Petitioners again failed and neglected to comply with the directions set out in the Judgment dated 4th June 2008, the Respondent No.1 filed a Recovery Application (ULP) No. 17 of 2008 in Complaint (ULP) No. 440 of 2005 under section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Though notices were issued to the Petitioners and served on them, the Petitioners did not appear before the Industrial Court and also failed to file their written statement. The Industrial Court, therefore, by its reasoned order dated 24th November 2009 allowed the Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 and issued a recovery certificate for Rs.3,08,662/- to the Collector, Mumbai Suburban, to recover the said amount from the Petitioners as arrears of land revenue. Only after the Petitioners received a recovery notice dated 15th July 2010 from the Office of the 4 wp-2062-10 Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, for recovery of Rs. 3,08,662/- that the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition impugning the Awards dated 20th March 1998 and 30th October 2001 passed by the Seventh Labour Court, Mumbai and the Judgment and Orders dated 4th June 2008 and 24th November 2009, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. 6. From the aforestated facts, it is clear that the Petitioners despite being aware of the Awards dated 20th March 1998 and 30th October 2001 have not complied with the same all these years thereby showing scant respect to the orders passed by the Courts of law. Since the Petitioners failed to comply with the directions given to them under the said Awards, a Complaint was filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Industrial Court where after hearing the Petitioners, a Judgment dated 4th June 2008 was passed directing the Petitioners to forthwith reinstate the Respondent No.1 and also to make payment of full back wages to the Respondent No.1 from 19th November 1991 i.e. from the date of order of the termination until actual reinstatement in service. The Petitioners also disobeyed this order. The conduct of the Petitioners compelled the Respondent No.1 to take out a Recovery Application under section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In the said Recovery Application, the Petitioners 5 wp-2062-10 failed to appear before the Industrial Court despite being served with a copy of the Application. The Industrial Court, therefore, issued a recovery certificate for Rs.3,08,662/- against the Petitioners. The recovery certificate is based on the Awards dated 20th March 1998, 30th October 2001 and the Judgment dated 4th June 2008 which are not only not impugned by the Petitioners all these years, but are also not complied with by the Petitioners. 7. Under the circumstances, in my view, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]