1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1795/2010. Prakash Suryabhanji Gaikwad -: VERSUS :- M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2010. Heard Shri C.V. Jagdale, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent. This Court has already issued notice for final disposal. Short grievance of Shri Jagdale, learned counsel is that Industrial Court has allowed ULPA Complaint filed by the petitioner and directed respondent – employer to provide alternate employment on 02.05.2008. No relief has been given for period from 20.09.2004 till the grant of alternate employment. The alternate employment is given on 05.08.2008 and hence, for said period the employee needs to be compensated by awarding him all arrears of wages. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel has invited 2 attention to clause 4 of settlement as contained in Circular No.8/2008 dated 10.09.2008. According to him this period needs to be treated as leave without pay. He also points out the prayer made in the complaint to urge that relief claimed has been given by the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court could not have given any other relief. In order words his contention is, no compensation for the period as claimed by the petitioner from Industrial Court has not been rightly granted. Perusal of the above mentioned circular shows that the period on which the employee incurs disability, till he join on other post, is to be treated as extra ordinary leave without wages. There is also a provisions that leave in balance to his credit can be carried forward. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has not given that clause as reason for denying the petitioner the benefits for above period. In fact the learned Member of the Industrial Court has not considered that period or then entitlement of petitioner to said benefit. The prayers in the complaint also show that the petitioner had sought a suitable direction and orders as may be deemed fit and proper by the Industrial Court in the circumstances of the case. The provisions of Section 28 read with Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act permits the Industrial Court to grant/mould 3 relief appropriately. In the circumstances as Industrial Court has not given any reason for not extending the said benefits to the petitioner, I am inclined to remand the matter back to the Industrial Court only for that purpose. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.05.2008 in ULP Complaint No.549/2008 in so far as it disposes of the complaint finally is only quashed and set aside. The ULP Complaint is restored back to its file for taking decision as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any wages/compensation for the above mentioned period i.e. from 20.09.2004 to 02.05.2008. Contentions raised by Shri Wankhede, learned counsel are kept open for consideration by the Industrial Court. Rest of the part of the order of Industrial Court is maintained as it is. Parties to appear before the Industrial Court on 16.08.2010 and to abide by is further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.