(1) lpa59-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5620 OF 2008 Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar, through its Executive Officer. APPELLANT VERSUS Tarachand Vitthalrao Mhaske, R/o 14, Vitthalprabha Housing Society, At & Post Loni, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.B. Talekar, advocate for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8th AUGUST, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge which reads as follows : "1. Head learned counsel. 2. Rule. 3. Interim stay to the judgment rendered by the Industrial Court. 4. Final hearing expedited." (2) lpa59-10 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows. 3. The appellant (for short, "the Employer") had employed the respondent (for short, "the Employee"). His services were terminated in 1994 and, therefore, he filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 41/1994 before the First Labour Court, Ahmednagar. That Complaint was decided on 5th January, 2006. The Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages, excluding the period of service from July, 1996 to November, 2002. While doing so, the Labour Court held that the Employer had committed an unfair labour practice under Item-1 (b) of Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. 4. Aggrieved by this decision of the Labour Court, both the Employer and the Employee preferred Revision Applications before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, by its order dated 3rd July, 2008, allowed the Revision Application filed by the Employer partly while dismissing the Revision (3) lpa59-10 Application filed by the Employee. As a consequence, the order passed by the Labour Court was modified by the Industrial Court. It upheld the declaration that the Employer had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item-1 (b) of Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. However, it directed the Employer to pay compensation of ` 70,000/- to the Employee within one month from the date of the order in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. 5. The Employee being aggrieved by this decision, preferred Writ Petition No. 5620 of 2008 before this Court in which the impugned order has been passed. 6. The learned counsel for the Employer submits that the consequence of the impugned order being passed, is that the Labour Court's order revives and the Employer would have to reinstate the Employee (workman) with continuity of service and backwages as directed by the Labour Court. The learned counsel also points out that while the Complaint was pending before the Labour Court, the Employee/Workman had (4) lpa59-10 been reinstated upon directions being issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5290 of 1996. Accordingly, the learned counsel points out that the Employee was called upon by the Employer to report for work. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Employee/Workman submits that when he reported for work, during the pendency of the Complaint, the Workman was not permitted to join duty. 8. We are informed by the learned counsel for the Employer that a domestic enquiry is being conducted against the Employee/Workman as he has been absent from the year 2002 onwards. 9. Without going into this controversy as to whether the Workman was, in fact, reinstated in service or whether he was not permitted to join service as contended by the Workman, in our opinion, the appeal can be disposed of with certain modifications in the impugned order. Accordingly, the order granting stay of the judgement of the Industrial Court passed by the learned Single Judge (5) lpa59-10 is modified as follows. (a) The respondent/Workman shall deposit in this Court an amount of ` 70,000/- which has been paid to him by the Employer in compliance with the orders passed by the Industrial Court. The amount shall be deposited within four weeks from today. (b) The Respondent shall report for duty on 5th September, 2011. The appellant/Employer shall reinstate the respondent/ workman in service and pay him wages each month in accordance with law. (c) The backwages payable to the respondent/Employee as per the directions of the Labour Court are stayed. (d) The amount of ` 70,000/- which will be deposited in this Court by the Respondent shall be invested in a Nationalised Bank initially for a period of three years, to be renewed thereafter for the like terms during the pendency of the Writ Petition. (e) The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of (6) lpa59-10 accordingly. 10. In view of disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil Application No.4801/2010 filed therein for grant of stay does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/lpa59-10