1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICCATION NO. 2306/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5631/2006 Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Wardha VERSUS Chandrakant Mahadeo Ashtekar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30 , 2009 . Heard Shri Sambre, Advocate, for the petitioner and Shri Kalbande, Advocate, for respondent/applicant. The matter was before this Court on 19/11/2009 and was adjourned to today, informing that parties have to point out that a person who is continued on daily-wages for very brief period can also be given benefit of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act in public employment. Advocate Shri Kalbande, for Respondent/applicant- employee has sought leave to file written notes of argument, but I have rejected it. The compilation which he wished to place on record has 2 been accepted. He has invited attention to the case laws in that compilation. The said judgments reported at 2003-II- LLJ 959; Ram Dhan vs. Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur and others of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench); 2007 II CLR 597; Arvindkumar Keshavlal Chhag vs. District Panchayat & Anr. of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (Single Judge); 1996 I LLJ 748; The Management of M/s. Praga Tools Ltd and The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer and Anr. of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court (D.B.); 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 640; Vishwas Shankarrao Joshi vs. Bank of Maharashtra (Division Bench of this Court); and unreported order of this Court dated 15th September, 2009, on C.A.No. 1561/2009 in W.P. NO. 5401/2006. By placing reliance upon all these judgments, learned counsel has contended that at this stage merits of the matter cannot be looked into and if ingredients of Section 17B are satisfied, the application needs to be allowed. He also pointed out that similarly situated colleagues of applicant have been given benefit of Section 17-B and are receiving last wages drawn accordingly. Advocate Shri Sambre for petitioner/employer 3 has pointed out that the employee has worked from 22.6.1992 to 30.7.1995 on daily-wages and as his recruitment was not proper and he had no right to post, this Court has admitted the writ petition and continued the interim relief. He further states that liberty was given to the applicant/respondent (employee) to move for vacation of that interim relief and accordingly C.A. NO. 5369/2008 was moved by the applicant seeking vacation and also an order under Section 17-B. That application was rejected on 10.10.2008 because the learned counsel for the employee/applicant could not remain present on that day. He further states that the present application is thus not maintainable. The employer of the applicant is Municipal Council, a local authority, and it is not in dispute that the employment with it is public employment. The provisions of Section 17-B are construed in various judgments mentioned above, but then the Division Bench of this Court has found that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court is not precluded from passing appropriate interlocutory orders having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Those observations are contained in paragraph 7.4 of 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 640 (Supra). It is to 4 be noted that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi 2006 AIR SCW 1991 and subsequent judgments if looked into, the law in this respect appears to be that employee like respondent cannot be given relief of reinstatement and at the most can be offered compensation. In view of this position, it would be against the spirit of these judgments and law if during the pendency of writ petition, the employer is required to pay monthly last drawn wages. In these circumstances, the application is rejected. However, in view of the fact that the other employees of the petitioner have been given benefit under Section 17-B, hearing of this writ petition and those writ petitions is expedited. List the writ petitions for final hearing in the week commencing 18th January, 2010. JUDGE Rvjalit