1 W.P.No.5278.06 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5278 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ... Petitioner v/s Shri Shirish Mangal Dodke ... Respondent Mr.P.G.Sawant, “B” Panel advocate for the State. Mr.V.V.Pai for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed to challenge the award of the Labour Court dated 28.12.2005 in Reference (IDA) No.44 of 2003. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner was an “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the I. D. Act). It has further held that the respondent is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act. The Labour Court has concluded that the respondent had completed 240 days of service in a 2 W.P.No.5278.06 year as a Cook and he therefore could not have been terminated from service without following the provisions of sections 25(F) and (G) of the I.D.Act which are mandatory. It has found that the respondent was not issued any notice of termination nor was he offered the retrenchment compensation. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. 30.12.2000. 2. In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the above order which requires this Court to interfere. 3. Apart from this, Mr.Pai, appearing for the respondent, points out that 10 similar petitions have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.11.2006 which were filed by the petitioner. 4. Writ petition rejected. 5. Since the petition has been rejected, the amount which has been deposited as back wages by the petitioner, shall be disbursed to the respondent workman completely without security or surety. ..... 3 W.P.No.5278.06 4 W.P.No.5278.06