22.06.wp1696.2011.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1696/2011. Mohd. Zakir s/o Sheikh Rahmatulla -vs- The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Amravati and two others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. B.M. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Wankhede, Advocate the respondents. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED: 22/06/2011. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20.09.1990 by which the reference (IDA) No. 9/2003 came to be partly allowed and the respondent no. 1 Corporation was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that both the issues which were framed, were answered in his favour but the Court did not grant the relief of reinstatement and back-wages. The petitioner was working as an Upholster with the respondent no.1/Corporation on daily wages from 1990 to 31.12.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that he rendered more than 240 days in a preceding year prior to the 22.06.wp1696.2011.odt 2/4 date of his termination. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 01.01.1994 when he went to join his duty, his services were orally terminated. The petitioner, after the services were allegedly orally terminated on 31.12.1993, raised an issue by giving demand notice on 24.10.2002 seeking his reinstatement with back wages, after following the procedure. The demand notice was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and was numbered as reference (IDA) No. 9/2003. The petitioner filed his statement of claim, which was replied by the respondent no. 1/ Corporation. The Labour Court inter-alia framed five issues regarding, as to whether the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated, whether he had completed 240 days continuous service and whether the petitioner was a casual labour and there was no need to comply Section 25-F and whether the relief sought by the petitioner he would be finally entitled to or not. The parties led evidence in respect of the issues. The Labour Court held two first three issues in favour of the petitioner. However, in so far as the reliefs to be granted to the petitioner are concerned, the Labour Court was of the view that since the petitioner was a daily wager, who had worked for three years, and therefore, though termination 22.06.wp1696.2011.odt 3/4 was found to be illegal on the application of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327 in the matter of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, grant of reinstatement with full back wages in case of illegal retrenchment of a daily wager would not be proper. The Labour Court therefore, partly allowed the said reference and directed the respondent no.1 Corporation to pay monetary compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the work is still available and another employee who was working, and who also was directed to be reinstated by an order of the same Labour Court has been so reinstated. In my view, in the light of the finding of the Labour Court, the petitioner could not have been granted reinstatement. Insofar as the other employee is concerned, the facts in the said case are not clear. However, in the instant case, as mentioned herein above there was a delay of 10 years in raising the demand. Lastly the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compensation is inadequate cannot be countenanced in the teeth of the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Having considered the findings of the Labour 22.06.wp1696.2011.odt 4/4 Court and in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagbir Singh’s case supra, the order of the Labour Court refusing reinstatement and back wages cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE NSN