1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2762 OF 2010 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Laxman B. Jadhav) 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. OCTOBER 04, 2010. Heard Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel states that notice of reference received from the office of Labour Commissioner was not properly attended to in the office of the petitioner and hence the claim was not defended before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). He contends that the respondent was an employee working under contract and there was no direct relationship. Only because there was no defence, an award of reinstatement with continuity has been granted. Shri Lahiri, learned counsel, on the other hand, invited attention to reference notice to show that it was duly received by the office of the petitioner. According to him, not appearing in pursuance thereof before CGIT is an act of negligence and this Court cannot permit the petitioner to take advantage of its own 2 wrong. He has also invited attention to the order dated 12.08.2002 passed by Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 453 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 1144 of 1997 as also order dated 12.08.2002 passed by that Bench in Writ Petition No. 439 of 1997. According to him, in identical circumstances, the matters have been compromised by the petitioner and work has been provided to the employees. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel states that he has no instructions about any such orders passed at Aurangabad Bench. During hearing Shri Lahiri, learned counsel has pointed out to this Court that the respondent was working as employee on daily wages from 1998 to 2003 i.e. for about five years. I do not find it necessary to record any finding in this respect because the impugned award mentions that he was working right from the date of his appointment till his oral termination on 07.08.2001. Reference received by CGIT having the number of year as 2004. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by giving the petitioner an opportunity to defend itself before the CGIT. However, that cannot be at the cost of the respondent who contested the matter for almost five years before the CGIT. In this situation, the petitioner is directed to provide work to the respondent as employee on daily wages as and when said work is 3 available during the pendency of reference proceedings before the CGIT. The petitioner shall also pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent by depositing that amount with the office of CGIT by 30th November 2010. The amount of cost shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent – employee. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be retained as it is and shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the party succeeding before the CGIT. If the costs of Rs.3,000/- as mentioned above are paid, the CGIT shall permit the petitioner (Employer) to file its written statement within a further period of four weeks thereafter and then shall proceed to record evidence of the parties. The CGIT shall attempt to deliver fresh award as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2011. Subject to this, the impugned Award dated 07.12.2009 delivered by the CGIT, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Case No. CGIT/NGP/49/2004 are restored back to the file of CGIT, Nagpur, for its further disposal as mentioned above. The parties to appear before the CGIT, Nagpur, on 30th November 2010. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE *GS.