1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5348 OF 2009 (The Conservator of Forest, Nagpur & Ors. vs. Kausalyabai Asaram Baghele) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5310 OF 2009 (The Conservator of Forest, Nagpur & Ors. vs. Smt. Mirabai Tularam Manapure) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5355 OF 2009 (The Conservator of Forest, Nagpur & Ors. vs. Smt. Panchfulla Shrikrishna Bhajipale) and WRIT PETITION NO. 4933 OF 2009 (The Conservator of Forest, Nagpur & Ors. vs. Kausalyabai Asaram Baghele) 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. MARCH 08, 2010. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Bandabuche, learned counsel for the respondents. Writ Petitions are for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. In the first three writ petitions, the judgment of Labour Court granting reinstatement to the respective respondents and maintained by Industrial Court are challenged. In Writ Petition No. 4933 of 2009, the subsequent judgment of Industrial Court in Complaint filed by employees for their regularization as per policy decision dated 31.01.1996 as also an award under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, passed by Labour Court has been challenged by the employer. The contention of Shri Deshpande, learned 2 counsel is, employees did not prove 240 days continuous service and the preliminary objection raised in this respect has not been looked into at all. He further contends that the retention of juniors in service is also not established and in this back ground, the grant of relief of reinstatement by Labour Court or Industrial Court is unsustainable. He points out that because of grant of relief of reinstatement, the services of employees after their initial termination in 1989 has been treated as continuous service for the purposes of Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 and direction to regularize them from 01.10.2004 has been given. This direction could not have been given as the employees were not in service at all. Lastly, he points out that because of that direction, Labour Court has given award in relation to difference of wages under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, on 01.01.2009 but then that difference has not been proved on record. Shri Bandabuche, learned counsel for the respondents – employees, on the other hand, points out that the employees specifically deposed that they had rendered continuous service from 1978 till 1989 and they had completed 240 days of continuous service in each year. They called upon the employer to produce the attendance registers / muster rolls but the same were not produced. The fact that juniors were retained in service has been proved with their names and that has 3 been accordingly accepted by Labour Court and Industrial Court. He points out that Labour Court had granted relief of reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages but back wages are declined by Industrial Court. As the juniors were retained, the relief of continuity was rightly granted and hence treating service of employees as continuous from 1989 till 1994, the benefit of Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 has been extended to them. He in this respect points out that the award of amount under Section 33-C(2) of the Act on that basis for the period after 01.10.2004 cannot be said to be vitiated. The fact that employees were in service from 1978 and are terminated in 1989 is not in dispute. The employees specifically deposed that they had worked continuously for 240 days in each year. They also gave names of juniors who were retained in service. The direction was given by Labour Court to employer to produce muster rolls / attendance registers. The relevant records were not produced and only part of it was produced. The Labour Court has found that the records produced were not in sequence with relevant page numbers or muster roll and because of this position, the evidence of employees has been accepted. Not only this, the employees examined one of the Forester Shri Omkarlal Chavan, who also supported their case. Considering all this material, the Labour 4 Court granted them relief of reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages on 19.04.2004. This order was modified by Industrial Court and they were denied back wages. Rest of the judgment of Labour Court was maintained as it is on 16.02.2005 by it. The discussion by Labour Court and Industrial Court clearly shows that the attendance registers/ muster rolls produced by the employer on record could not be believed by it and the evidence on record demonstrated retention of juniors in service. In this back ground, grant of relief of reinstatement to employees cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The finding of completion of 240 days is also recorded because of this material and also because of failure on the part of the petitioners to produce the relevant records. Because of this judgment of Industrial Court granting them reinstatement with continuity, subsequent ULP Complaint under items 5, 6 & 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, was filed by the employees and they sought regularization as per Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996. That resolution contemplates regularization of daily wagers if they have continued in service from 01.11.1989 till 31.10.1994 on daily wages provided they have completed 240 days of service in each year. In view of earlier adjudication, this ULP Complaint No. 169 of 2004 was allowed by the 5 Industrial Court on 01.08.2005 and benefit of Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996 was extended to employees. The employees had also filed IDA No. 40 of 2005 under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. In that application, they sought initially recovery of 50% of back wages as per the first judgment of Labour Court granting them relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages. However, after modification by Industrial Court, they amended their application and sought the relief of regular wages from 01.10.2004 i.e. the date on which the regularization has been given to them. The Labour Court has recorded evidence of parties and has granted them that benefit accordingly. The material on record shows that after this judgment of Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) dated 01.01.2009, the petitioners by these petitions, challenged all the judgments of Labour Court and Industrial Court mentioned above. The laches are also sought to be explained. Considering the fact that the petitioner is Government department, I do not find anything wrong with the affidavits filed explaining laches. However, the facts show that the Labour Court as also Industrial Court have correctly approached the controversy and have correctly appreciated the facts. The retention of juniors by the petitioners, though services of respondents were terminated, has been established on record. 6 In these circumstances, I do not find anything wrong warranting interference in writ jurisdiction in concurrent orders/ judgments. No case is made out. Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.