IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.325 OF 2010. Keshav s/o Laxman Salunkhe. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.Y. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri .... A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for both parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. By this petition, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nashik Division, Nashik dated 23rd November, 2009 has been challenged wherein it is noted that the appointment of the petitioner is not given as per the Rules. Hence, his services cannot be regularized. The grievance of the petitioner is that the issue about regularization was specifically considered in the proceedings between the parties before the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court. The petitioner was required to file complaint (ULP) No. 80 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Jalgaon in respect of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 1(a)(b)(d)(e)(f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The said complaint was decided in favour of the petitioner by judgment and order dated 3rd January, 1997 in the following terms: “ORDER i. The complaint is partly allowed. ii. It is hereby declared that the respondents by indulging in unfair labour practices under Item 1(a)(b)(d) and (f) of Sche. IV of the MRTU & PULP Act 1971 by terminating the complainant w.e.f. 26.5.95. iii. The respondents are hereby directed to cease and desist from such unfair labour practices and to take affirmative action by reinstating the complainant in service with continuity of service from the date of termination and pay him 25% of his back wages. Prayer of the complainant for full back wages is stands hereby rejected and 75% back wages are denied to the complainant. iv. 30 days time from the date of passing of this order are hereby granted to the respondents to comply with the aforesaid order passed by this Cort. v. There is no order as to costs.” 4. The correctness of this decision was put in issue by the respondents by way of Revision Application ULP No.853 of 1999. The same however, was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 12th July, 2002. In spite of the judicial pronouncement in favour of the petitioner, since the respondents did not remedy the grievance of the petitioner, he once again resorted to complaint before the Industrial Court with Complaint (ULP) No. 2/2001. Once again the issue of permanency was put in issue before the Industrial Court as can be discerned from the observations made in the judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated 28th March, 2006, which reads thus: “ ORDER 1. The Complt. ULP No.2/2001 is hereby allowed. 2. It is hereby declared that the respondents have committed an unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Sche. IV of the MRTU & PULP Act 1971 and directed to cease and desist from continuing the same. 3. The respondents are hereby further directed to treat the complainant continuous in service from the date of his termination as per order of ld. Labour Court Jalgaon in Complt. ULP No.80/95 dated 3.1.1997 and it is also directed that the respondents should give all the consequential and monetary benefits to the complainant on and from 1.5.98 by deducting the monetary benefits i.e. Wages which have been paid till the date within the period of two months from the date of this order. 4. No order as to costs.” 5. This decision was challenged by the respondents before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.7193 of 2006, which however, was dismissed on 16th January, 2008. While dismissing the writ petition preferred by the respondents, the High Court had an occasion to consider the argument that similarly situated employees have already been regularized. That can be noticed from the discussion in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which reads thus: “5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, has also filed an affidavit in reply, wherein it has been averred that a similarly situated employee by name of Bavner, his services have been regularised by P.R. The order dated 9.6.2000. To the said affidavit is also annexed an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 5.8.2004, wherein a person similarly situated as the Respondent was involved and whose services were similarly terminated. The learned Judge in the identical fact situation did not deem it fit to interfere with the identical findings recorded by the Industrial Court. ” 6. On perusal of the decisions of the Labour Court and Industrial Court as also that of the learned Single Judge, there is no manner of doubt that the issue of permanency was specifically considered in the earlier proceedings and those decisions have become final. In the face of those decisions, it was not open to the respondents to contend that services of the petitioner cannot be regularized, inasmuch as, the decisions of the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court including that of the learned Single Judge of this Court confirming the opinion of the Industrial Court would bind all the respondents. The respondents are bound to give effect to the said decisions, which would require the respondents to treat the petitioner as in permanent service and give all consequential benefits on that basis. Unless the said decisions were to be reversed, the respondents cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary. In the circumstances, the basis on which the authorities have rejected the request for regularization of service put forth by the petitioner cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned communication sent to the petitioner dated 23rd November, 2009 is set aside and instead, the writ petition will have to be made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C), which read thus: “C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the proposal and grant the benefits to the petitioner within a period of two month.” Accordingly, the respondents shall take necessary steps, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Rule made absolute accordingly. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] PLK/*