-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3963 OF 1997 Smt.Sukanya Nilakanth Patole, Indian inhabitant of Ratnagiri, residing at and post Partavane Near Satyanarayan Mandir, Dist. Ratnagiri. : Petitioner V/s. 1. The President, Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri. 2. The Chief Officer, Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri. 3. Shri P.W. Bhuyar, Judge Labour Court at Kolhapur, Kolhapur. 4. Shri A.P. Vibhute, Member, Industrial Court Kolhapur, District Kolhapur. : Respondents .... Mr.M.S.Topkar for the petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Bhatkar for respondent no.2. -: 2 :- .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2009. ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court in revision by which the learned Industrial Court reversed the order of the Labour Court setting aside the petitioner’s termination and directing reinstatement without back wages. The Labour Court found as follows:- "The Complainant has worked for a period from 20-5-1987 to 30-6-1987, 18-10-1987 to 24-1-1988, 13-4-1988 to 7-10-1988, 7-11-1988 to 4-3-1989, 15-5-1989 to 19-6-1989 and 6-7-1990 to 1-8-1990." 2. The Labour Court found that the petitioner had been given break in service only with a view to deprive her the benefits of permanency. The petitioner had been appointed in a clear vacancy on the post of a Clerk and there was no evidence to show that this post was reserved for any category. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner’s services ought not to have been terminated. The Labour Court, accordingly, granted the relief of reinstatement without back wages. -: 3 :- 3. In revision filed by the respondent, the learned Industrial Court noticed that the petitioner had served from 7.11.1988 to 4.3.1989 and 15.5.1989 to 19.6.1989. However, the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the termination under the order dated 19.6.1989 because subsequent to his termination, she was appointed on 6.7.1990 and worked till 1.8.1990 prior to the filing of the complaint. According to the Industrial Court, the effect of the termination of the petitioner’s services on 19.6.1989 was of no consequence and was lost because the petitioner accepted the subsequent appointment, the termination from which she had not challenged. In a case like this, the Industrial Court ought to have seen that the view taken by it would enable an employer to deny the employee’s claim in Court for permanency simply by issuing an appointment order subsequently for a short period. That cannot be the law. In the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the order of the learned Industrial Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 4. The judgement and order of the Industrial Court is, accordingly, set aside. Since there is no dispute about the period for which the petitioner has worked, I am of view that the order of the Labour Court is liable to be -: 4 :- restored. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any back wages. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly. S.A. BOBDE, J.