1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1793 OF 1994 The State of Mah. Through The Dy. Director, Social Forestry Div., Sudake Mala, Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri. Popat Jabaji Rakate, Age 28 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. Pimperna, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednager. 2. The Hon’ble Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. ....Respondents. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for petitioner. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17th June 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is preferred by the State, challenging the judgment and order dated 23rd of December 1993 passed by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision (ULP) No. 9/1991. The revision filed by the respondent No. 1 – employee has been allowed by the Industrial Court, holding that in terminating the services of the respondent No. 1 – employee, petitioner was engaged in unfair labour practices. Hence, the order of termination was set aside and reinstatement with continuity in service and half backwages from the 2 date of termination was granted. 2. The respondent No. 1 Popat Jabaji Rakate filed complaint (ULP) No. 9/1989 before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar under section 28 of Item 1(a) (b) (f) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. He alleged that he joined the employment of the petitioner on 1.12.1991 and worked as 'Watchman' in Sangamner range up to 28.5.1983. His name was entered in the muster roll as 'Watchman' for 29 days. He further alleged that he worked as 'Lagwad Kotwal' since 25.7.1983. Thereafter, he appeared for interview for the said post and was appointed on 1.12.1984 on temporary basis as 'Lagwad Kotwal'. He further alleged that his services were terminated on 2.12.1988. He had worked for more than 240 days continuously in the year preceding the date of termination. He alleged that there was total non compliance of section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act while terminating his services. He alleged that he was neither served with any notice nor retrenchment compensation has been paid and the persons appointed subsequent to him were retained in the services. 3. The Labour Court, Ahmednagar has dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant has failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally with effect from 1.12.1988 and there was no unfair labour practices, as alleged. The Labour Court recorded clear-cut finding that the complainant had worked for more than 240 days continuously 3 as 'Lagwad Kotwal' preceding the date of his termination. However, according to the learned Judge of the Labour Court, the post in which the complainant was appointed, was not sanctioned or was not in existence and for want of sanctioned post, the claim of the complainant cannot be accepted. Hence, on this ground, the complaint was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.1.1991. 4. The respondent No. 1 – employee preferred revision (ULP) No. 9/1991 before the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar. The learned Member of the Industrial Court recorded a finding that the admitted position was that the employee had worked for more than 240 days continuously in the calender year preceding the date of his termination and hence, compliance of section 25F was necessary. In the absence of such compliance, it was held that the employee was entitled to be reinstated in the service with backwages. Accordingly, the termination was set aside. The respondent No. 1 – employee was reinstated in service as 'Lagwad Kotwal' and the petitioner – employer was directed to pay half of the backwages from the date of termination. This judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar delivered on 23rd of December 1993, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 5. Undisputed factual position being that the respondent No. 1 – 4 employee completed more than 240 days continuous service preceding the date of his termination, the provisions of section 25F have not been complied with, in the sense that neither notice of termination nor retrenchment compensation was paid to the employee. The consequences is that violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, resulted in setting aside the order of termination and granting reinstatement and backwages. This is what has been done by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Industrial Court. The contention of the petitioner that the post of 'Lagwad Kotwal' was not available or that it was not sanctioned, is of no consequence in view of the aforesaid factual background. It is not the case where the employee is claiming permanency in service under any of the items of Schedule IV of the Unfair Labour Practices Act. The respondent No. 1 – employee is a temporary or daily wager employee. The order of reinstatement and backwages is required tobe passed in view of non compliance of section 25F of the said Act. 6. In the result, there is no substance in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp1793.94