1 W.P.No4857/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4857 OF 2011. Nav Akansha Mahila Mandal, Parbhani through its President Chanchal W/o Sanjay Khirade and others ... petitioners. Versus Smt.Devshala d/o Motiram Gaikwad, and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.M.Joshi, advocate for the petitoners. Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.R.R.Phatake, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.08.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No4857/11 2. The present Respondent No.1 had filed an appeal before the competent authority - Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, against the oral termination. It is a case of Respondent No.1 that she was appointed as a cook since 2001 and has been working continuously upto the year 2007-2008. According to the Respondent No.1 after 19.12.2008, the Respondent was not allowed to work and she was orally terminated. The competent authority allowed the appeal, directed reinstatement and continuity of service and back wages. The said order is assailed in the present petition. 3. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is passed without any application of mind. The authority while allowing the complaint has not taken into consideration the say filed by the petitioners, so also the Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad and the memos issued to the Respondent No.1 by the petitioners from time to time. According to the learned counsel, the 3 W.P.No4857/11 Respondent No.1 was not terminated from service but she herself remained absent. Even the Social Welfare Officer who had made inquiry had filed his say substantiating the case put forth by the petitioners but that aspect has also not been considered by the authority. The learned counsel contends that the Respondent No.1 is in habit of filing false complaints and her conduct is improper. She is cook and if she remains absent, the students have to remain without food. All these aspects have been ignored by the authority while passing the impugned order. 4. Mr.Thombre, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 supports the order and states that the Respondent No.1 was harassed by the Management from time to time and as such she was required to file the complaints. According to the learned counsel, the Respondent No.1 was asked not to remain present after 19.12.2008 and that is why appeal was required to be filed. The Respondent No.1 has worked diligently and has not remained unnecessarily absent. 4 W.P.No4857/11 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments and the documents filed. No doubt, the order impugned does not give the reasons. In my opinion, the same would not be necessary in view of the say filed by the petitioners and the Social Welfare Officer. The petitioners in their say had admitted that the society is ready to allow the Respondent No.1 to join the work. In view of said categorical say filed by the petitioners Management, so also of the Social Welfare Officer, there was no reason for the authority not to allow the appeal. If the petitioners were inclined to allow Respondent No. 1 to join her duties then in such circumstances, whether the Respondent No.1 is being reinstated or is asked to join duties, the said nomenclature would not make much difference. In any case, the petitioners are ready to allow the Respondent No. 1 to join the duties. 6. In light of the above, the dispute would remain in a narrow compass. The dispute would be regarding the wages from 2009 till date. 5 W.P.No4857/11 Mr.Thombre, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 on instructions of the Respondent No.1 submits that the Respondent No.1 would waive the wages till the date of the order of the competent authority. In light of the above, the impugned order is modified to the extent of back wages. The Respondent No.1 shall be entitled for wages after the order passed by the competent authority i.e. from May 2011 onwards and not prior to that. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp485711 6 W.P.No4857/11