1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No.630 of 2009 In Letters Patent Appeal No.297 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.583 of 2009 (D) (Municipal Council, Paoni v. Diwakar s/o Shankarrao Bhoge) Civil Application No.631 of 2009 In Letters Patent Appeal No.299 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.578 of 2003 (D) (Municipal Council, Paoni v. Bhagwan s/o Punaji Awasare) Civil Application No.629 of 2009 In Letters Patent Appeal No.300 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.577 of 2003 (D) (The Municipal Council, Paoni v. Balaji Girmaji Katekhaye) Civil Application No.634 of 2009 In Letters Patent Appeal No.301 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.580 of 2003 (D) (The Municipal Council, Paoni v. Raju Sadashiv Bawankar) 2 Civil Application No.632 of 2009 In Letters Patent Appeal No.302 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.585 of 2003 (D) (The Municipal Council, Paoni v. Harihar Gopal Nanhe) Civil Application No.633 of 2009 In Letters Patent Appeal No.303 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.579 of 2003 (D) (The Municipal Council, Paoni v. Shailendra Bhaskar Ghodichor) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.P. Jaiswal, Advocate for Applicant. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Appellant. Coram : A.H. Joshi and A.R. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 26 th November, 2009 1. The amount deposited in this Court is towards arrears of back wages along with interest. 2. By the present application, the workman concerned wants to withdraw the entire amount. 3. The foundation of the prayer for withdrawal, as argued before us, is that because of wrongful termination, full back wages would have to follow. 3 4. In contrast, the learned Advocate for the appellant states that in the complaint filed before the Labour Court, neither a pleading was made that the workman was in gainful employment nor any evidence in that regard was brought, and, therefore, the practice that the reinstatement has to follow by back wages does not apply, particularly when the plea of victimization was not involved. 5. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, what was noticed is failure to observe the procedure laid down under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, fresh notice and retrenchment compensation would ordinarily follow. However, as a matter of rule, full back wages cannot be granted. In this background, he is objecting to the prayer for withdrawal of amount. 6. In these premises, it is hard to accept that the reinstatement by itself would follow by back wages. 7. In the result, the application does not deserve to be allowed and it is rejected accordingly. 8. We, however, direct that the amount deposited in this Court be kept in fixed deposit in order to fetch interest, initially for a period of three years and it shall be renewed from time to time. Judge. Judge. pdl