1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1041 OF 2010 (Shrikrishna Haribhau Shende vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2010 (Smt. Satyabhama Raghoji Ghbane vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1042 OF 2010 (Mrs. Shewanta Manohar Gabhne vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1043 OF 2010 (Smt. Meera Bai Deorao Sakarkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1044 OF 2010 (Smt. Tarabai Desaram Karemore vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1045 OF 2010 (Smt. Shakuntala Kashinath Bhure vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1046 OF 2010 (Smt. Meerabai Thanuji Thote vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1047 OF 2010 (Smt. Bhagaratabai Mahadeo Badwaik vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 1048 OF 2010 (Smt. Vimal Shankar Nirwan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 12, 2010. Heard finally Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and S/Shri Mujumdar, Kankale and Adgokar, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for respondent No.1 in respective writ petitions. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel contends that termination of respective petitioners was found to be bad by the Labour Court and hence it granted reinstatement with 50% back wages. The respondent – employer filed revisions before Industrial Court challenging that judgment. The petitioners also filed revisions 2 challenging denial of 50% back wages. The Industrial Court has by a common order dated 24.09.2009 allowed revisions filed by the employer and dismissed revisions filed by the petitioners. With the result, the petitioners are out of employment. His contention is, the Industrial Court has been misled because of judgment of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported at AIR 2006 SC 1806. He points out that the Industrial Court has in fact relied upon the judgment in the case of Indian Drugs and pharmaceutical Limited vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Limited, reported at (2007) 1 SCC 408 and according to him as the law as expounded in subsequent judgment in the case of Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, reported at (2009) 7 SCC 556, has not been considered, the matter needs to be remanded back. The learned AGPs on the other hand support the order of Industrial Court. They urge that as the petitioners have entered the services through back door, the judgment of Uma Devi has been rightly followed. In the alternative, they further urge that there is no finding by Labour Court or Industrial Court of availability of any vacancy. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused the judgment of Labour Court and common order of Industrial Court. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan 3 Karmchari Sanghatana, (supra) is subsequent and therefore, the learned Member of Industrial Court has no occasion to consider it. The said judgment and its implications are, therefore, not gone into in present matter. The learned AGPs are, therefore, right when they contend that there is no finding of existence of any vacancy by Industrial Court or by Labour Court. In this situation, the common order of Industrial Court dated 24.09.2010 as also the judgment of Labour Court dated 04.02.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings in respective ULP Complaints are restored back to the file of Labour Court, Bhandara, for taking fresh decision in accordance with law on the point. The parties are at liberty to amend their respective pleadings and to adduce additional evidence, if they are so advised. The Labour Court, Bhandara, shall attempt to decide the Complaint (ULP) as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2010. Till then status quo in relation to services of the petitioners shall continue. Writ Petition are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.