-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3904 OF 2008 The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department .. Petitioners versus Housiram R. Ugale .. Respondent Mr. D.A. Patil. Assistant Government Pleader, for the petitioners. Smt. Seema Sarnaik for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 17, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Nasik dated 28th March, 2007, in Revision Application (ULP) Nos. 57 of 2006 and 11 of 2007. By the aforesaid order, the Industrial Court has dismissed both the revision applications and confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court, Nasik in Complaint (ULP) No. 76 of 1988. 2. The respondent has filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Nasik, under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practices on the part of the Department on the ground that even though he had served continuously for a considerable period, by way of an -2- oral order, his services were terminated. The Labour Court after considering the evidence and record and the case laws cited before him came to the conclusion that the Department has indulged into unfair labour practices and passed an order of reinstatement with 40 per cent back wages in favour of the respondent. The petitioners challenged the said order by way of revision being Revision Application (ULP) No. 57 of 2006 and the respondent also filed cross revision being Revision Application (ULP) No. 11 of 2007 in so far as denial of full back wages to him by the Labour Court. The said revisions were filed under Section 44 of the Act. The Industrial Court, Nasik dismissed both the revision applications by order dated 28th March, 2007. 3. The respondent has not filed any cross petition challenging the order of revisional Court but the Department has filed the present petition challenging the order of the revisional Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the respondent was offered alternate employment in the same Department as well as compensation. Yet, without accepting the same he has invoked the relevant provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act by filing a complaint before the Labour Court. The learned AGP submitted that it is not true that since 1985 the respondent was engaged in discharging the duty. It is submitted that as and when work was available, he was regularly taken in service. As against that Mrs. Seema Sarnaik, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the facts of the case demonstrates how the respondent was victimised. She submitted -3- that at the relevant time the respondent had put in more than thirteen years of service yet in a casual manner he was asked not to resume duty without passing any order. It is submitted that no other alternate employment was offered at all by the Department and if such an appointment was given, there was no reason for the respondent to raise an industrial dispute by filing a complaint. It is submitted that the respondent was serving uninterruptedly on the basis of daily rated employment since thirteen years and in any case it is not in dispute that he had completed 240 days in a particular calendar month. Under these circumstances, the Department was not justified in orally terminating the services of the respondent. She also denied that any compensation was offered to the respondent. It is submitted that there is clear violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court was, therefore, justified in passing the order after considering the factual aspect of the matter. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders of the revisional Court as well as of the Labour Court. The order of the Labour Court is read before me by both the learned Advocates as well as the revisional order also. It is required to be noted that the order of the Industrial Court is passed on 28th March, 2007. The petition is filed in the month of June, 2008 i.e. after a period of one year and two months. For all this period, the Department has flouted the orders as there -4- was no interim stay operating, obviously because petition was not filed at all. The Department cannot flout the orders of the Court in this manner on its own. No satisfactory grounds have been made out as to why the petition was not filed within a reasonable period and why no attempt was made for getting stay of the order of the Labour Court which is confirmed by the Industrial Court. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of such a litigant who disobeyed the order of the Court for a considerable time without obtaining any stay order against such order. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the respondent was discharging his duties since 1985. Considering the nature of evidence, the Court has found that the petitioner is an 'industry' . Even as per the say of the learned AGP, alternate employment was offered to the respondent in this very department by the Department itself. Considering the said aspect and more particularly in view of the fact that the Department had even not bothered to take any steps on its own for such a long time, this is not a case in which this Court would try to assist such a petitioner by exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Considering the said facts and circumstances, the petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed by the Labour Court may not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The petitioners may now comply with the order of the Labour Court without any further delay. -5- P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.