1 wp8357.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8357 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 477 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner in WP No. 477/11 and for Respondent in WP No. 8357/10. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for petitioner in WP No. 8357/10 and for respondent in WP no. 477/11. 1. The Petitions are filed by employer and employee challenging the very same judgment delivered by the Industrial Court in ULP Revision No. 45 of 2006 on 27.11.2008. Labour Court granted employee-Narsingh reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages. In Revision filed by employer, the Industrial Court maintained the reinstatement and continuity but declined to grant any back wages. 2. Learned A.G.P. contends that the petitioner had only worked for two years i.e. from 01.11.1999 till 11.11.2001 and hence he could not have been given relief of reinstatement or continuity as he was working on 2 wp8357.10 daily wages. He has further pointed out that as the challenge is pending before this Court, in order to avoid any coercive steps the employer has started providing work to employee. According to him, as the employee had no right to post, the Industrial Court should have allowed the Revision in its entirety and dismissed the complaint. 3. Advocate for respondent-employee contends that there is concurrent findings of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as the termination is oral, relief of back wages granted could not have been disturbed by the Industrial Court. 4. During the hearing it has been pointed out to this Court, the complaint challenging the termination in 2001 was filed in the year 2004 and it was entertained after condoning the delay on 29.10.2004. 5. The fact that employee put in service of 240 days continuously and has worked from 01.11.1999 till 11.11.2001 is concurrently established. His termination is also oral and therefore violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has also come on record. The employee however could not point out after his termination any other person junior to him was continued in service or then there was fresh recruitment. 3 wp8357.10 6. In this situation, I do not find anything wrong in use of its discretion by the Industrial Court. When the petitioner employee approached to the Labour Court after about three years, denial of back wages by Industrial Court can not be faulted with. 7. Similarly, when violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is established, direction to provide him work on daily wages on his previous post also can not be faulted with. 8. I therefore find that no case is made out warranting any interference in the matter. Petitions are dismissed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.02.2011 gas/wp8357.10