1 16 wp 3041.11.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3041 OF 2011 Seinumero Machine Tools Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Shri Sunil Kantilal Surwase ..Respondent. Mr. R.R. Yadav for petitioner. Mr. Nitin Kulkarni for respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 19th April, 2011. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. 3 By consent matter is taken on board for final hearing at the stage of admission. 4 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner-first party challenges the order dated 14th September, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (ID) No.57 of 2004 directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent on his original 2 16 wp 3041.11.doc post with continuity of service and pay him full back wages with effect from 26th May, 2002. 3 A few facts of the matter are as under: The respondent was working with Petitioner since 2nd July, 1999. The Petitioner by their termination letter dated 26th May, 2002 terminated the respondents services with effect from 26th May, 2002. Along with the said letter, petitioner forwarded a bankers cheque no.996220 of Rs.12,341/- as provided under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4 When the respondent attended the Company on 26th May, 2002 their Personnel Manager, Dattatray Bhonge informed the respondent that his services were retrenched with effect from 26th May, 2002. Therefore, the respondent preferred a Reference. The said Reference was registered as ID No.57 of 2004. The learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Pune allowed the said Reference on the ground that the Petitioner failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and mainly on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prepare seniority list as required under Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. The 3 16 wp 3041.11.doc Tribunal also held that the Petitioner failed to serve the notice as required under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act on the respondent. 5 Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14th September, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Pune, the Petitioner preferred present Writ Petition. 6 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that they failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the Petitioner issued the notice dated 26th May, 2002 alongwith detailed statement of final settlement of dues and a cheque of the amount payable as per the said settlement to the respondent. They posted the said letter on 26th May, 2002 but the same was returned unserved. He submits that as per section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, they have to issue notice and same was issued by them. He further submits that preparation of the seniority list is not mandatory provision, therefore, the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Pune is contrary to law and same is liable to be set aside. 4 16 wp 3041.11.doc 7 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submits that admittedly, the Petitioner failed to comply with the rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 i.e. preparing of seniority list. These facts are not denied by the Petitioner, in their written statement or in any proceedings. 8 I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties before the Labour Court. It is admitted fact that Petitioner has not prepared any seniority list as required under the provisions of rule 81 of the the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. This itself is a violation of statutory provisions of law. In any case, the finding given by the trial court is finding of fact supported by evidence and it is not possible to re-appreciate the same under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 9 No order as to costs. (K.K.Tated, J.)