1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LPA No. 216 of 2010 In WP No. 3222 of 10 Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University v. Vinod Jaisingpure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr J.B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant Coram : D.B. Bhosale and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 5.7.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Respondent-workman had filed Reference before the Labour Court, Amravati alleging violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court vide its award dated 22.12.2008 answered the Reference partly in the affirmative and thereby directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity in service, but without back- wages. The appellant-employer challenged the Award by way of Writ Petition No. 3222 of 2009 and prayed for stay of the impugned Award. Learned single Judge while admitting the petition vide order dated 9.11.2009, refused to grant stay of the Award. The interim order dated 9.11.2009 is the subject-matter of this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 2 respondent-workman had filed Reference after five years of alleged termination and he was away from employment for nearly thirteen years and on this ground alone, order made by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and interim stay of Award needs to be granted. 4. Respondent-workman is ordered to be reinstated on the post of Peon and for that relief, he had to wait for thirteen years. Appellant-employer cannot be heard to say that since the workman was away from employment for about thirteen years, he should be kept away therefrom for another decade. No prejudice would be caused to the appellant if the order made by the learned single Judge, which is interlocutory in nature, is maintained inasmuch as the order of reinstatement is without payment of back-wages. Writ Petition is already admitted and it would be open for the appellant to raise all the grounds available in law to assail the impugned Award. 5. There is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal which we hereby dismiss in limine. Judge. joshi