1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2214/2009. Shri Datta Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Society Ltd., Tembhurni Tq.Jafrabad, Dist.Jalna, Through it’s Manager. ­ PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Jagain s/o Ramrao Chavan and two others. ­ RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Pradeep Shahane,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.HV Patil,Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr.VG Shelke,AGP for Respondent No.3. ­­­­­ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 4th October,2010. PER COURT: 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2) Respondent nos.1 and 2 were permanent employees of the petitioner/society, no controversy for the same. The grievance of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was, in spite of they being serving with the petitioner, they were not allowed to sign the muster roll, resultantly, 2 their persistent absence was recorded and consequently, the wages, for which they were entitled to receive, were also not disbursed. 3) Mr.Shahane, learned Counsel for the petitioner/employer informs, basically after remand of the matter from this Court, by virtue of orders in Writ Petition No.942/2008, the petitioner could not keep track of the matter since there was no communication from the learned Judge about taking up the matter. 4) These submissions, on behalf of the petitioner, though may not be convincing, as it was also expedient duty of the counsel for the petitioner to inform in respect of remand of the matter and time schedule recorded in Writ Petition No.942/2008 dated 3rd December, 2008. Be that, as it may, the fact remains the petitioner did not prosecute the matter as employer and resultantly, whatever was the evidence adduced by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned Judge was required to act upon it. 5) Now, the question of wages from August 2005 to December, 2008, as is directed by the learned Judge in clause (3) of his order, is to be looked into. Mr.Shahane rightly informs that that from 23.11.2005 to at least 21.7.2008, the Respondent No.2 was working as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Akola (Dev) Tq.Jafrabad, District Nanded. In spite of this glaring position, 3 learned counsel for the respondents/employees informs, the activities as Sarpanch was in day time while he was working as a Watchman with petitioner/society in night time. Though this may be an appealing event, however, difficult to be in tune with the legal position, as the respondent was holding the post of elected member under the Act and consequently, could not have accepted employment with the cooperative society. This aspect necessarily will have to be independently addressed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna. 6) Taking the above facts into consideration, the matter is remitted to the learned Judge to decide the same within six months from receiving a writ of this Court. Both the parties shall appear before the learned Judge on 28th October, 2010. There will not be any demur either from the petitioner or from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that there was no separate notice served to them. 7) The petitioner/employer shall additionally pay an amount of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand) each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as costs of this litigation. 8) The petitioner shall disburse/release the wages to the extent of 50% from February 2009 till this date, by depositing the same with learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, up to 4 29th October, 2010.. If such amount is deposited, on an undertaking from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned Judge shall release the same in favour of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9) With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/