IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY , NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5780 of 2005 (Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Distt. Chandrapur & 3 Ors. vs. Chandrakant Mahadeo Farkade & Ors.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : R.V.More, J. DATE : January 15, 2008. Heard Mr. B.B.Mehadia, Adv. for the Petitioners. Initially, notice before admission was issued by this Court by an order dt. 24.11.2005, however, the notice was returned back as the sole respondent expired during pendency of the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner took out an application for bringing legal heirs of sole respondent on record and the respondent nos. 1(a) to 1(c) are brought on record. By an order dt. 16.6.2007, notice was issued to the legal heirs of sole respondent namely 1(a) to 1(c) with intimation that the petition may be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. The respondent nos. 1(a) to 1 (c ) are served, but nobody appears for them. Deceased respondent Mahadeo Lingu Farkade had filed a complaint in the Labour Court, Chandrapur for the declaration that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice by terminating him from service and for reinstatement with backwages. Similar complaints were also filed by seventeen other complainants. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, Chandrapur disposed of the 18 complaints including the complaint filed by the complainant/ respondent Mahadeo by common order dt. 29.8.1997 and held that the complainants in the complaints are entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and full backwages. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the afore-said order, preferred Revision (ULP) No.11/1998. The petitioners also filed revision against the order passed in other 17 complaints. These 18 revisions filed by the petitioners came to be disposed of by common order by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Chandrapur on 10.8.2004 and all the revisions came to be dismissed. The petitioners thereafter filed applications for review before the Industrial Court bearing Misc. Application Nos. 9/2004 and 10/2004. However, the same also came to be dismissed by order dt. 31.1.2005 by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur. The petitioners thereafter preferred 18 writ petitions namely Writ Petition Nos. 5751/2005, 5754/2005, 5768/2005, 5769/2005, 5770/2005, 5772/2005, 5773/2005, 5774/2005, 5775/2005, 5776/2005, 5777/2005, 5778/2005, 5779/2005, 5780/2005, 5781/2005, 5782/2005, 5783/2005 and 5784/2005. The 17 Writ Petition excluding present Writ Petition No.5780 of 2005 came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing the order dt. 12.2.2007 after hearing both the sides. The 17 Writ Petitions came to be allowed and the judgment of the Labour Court dt. 29.8.1997 was quashed and set aside and consequently, all further orders are also quashed and set aside. The said order was passed subject to the statement made by petitioners to the effect that if the work which was being done by the original respondents is available, the same shall be made available to them in preference in future on the same terms. The facts in the present case and the facts in the aforesaid mentioned 17 Writ Petitions are one and similar. The impugned order in this petition is common order also was passed in the other 17 revisions filed by the petitioners. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mehadia makes a statement that in this petition also order be passed to the effect that if the work which deceased respondent was doing is available, the same shall be made available to the respondent nos. 1(a) to 1 (c ) in preference in future on same terms. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment of the Labour Court dt. 29.8.1997 and consequently, all further orders are quashed and set aside. However, the same is subject to the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners which is recorded above. For the reasons stated in the common order dt. 12.2.2007 passed in the afore-mentioned seventeen Writ Petitions, this petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssj