1 WP 428.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2010 Ashok S/o Sonba Kasbe Age : 42 Yeas, Occ. : Service, R/o : Opp. Darak Hospital, Tapadia Galli, More nagar, Tq. & Dist. : Latur. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. State Bank of Hyderabad (Associate of State Bank of India IPD H.O. Gun Foundry, Hyderabad [ Andhra Pradesh ] ) Through its Managing Director. 2. The Regional Manager State Bank of Hyderabad Nanded Region, Nanded. 3. State Bank of Hyderabad Latur Main branch, Latur, Through its Branch Manager. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. C.R.Deshpande ,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents. 2 WP 428.2010 - ( J ) CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/06/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The Reference was made for adjudication to the CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur pertaining to the dispute about ten ( 10 ) employees. The dispute mainly revolved around the regularization of the said employees. The respondents had filed an affidavit before the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur stating that the present petitioner has been regularized and made permanent. The learned Presiding Officer restricted the decision to the four ( 4 ) workmen, whose removal was under challenge. In para no. 12 of the Judgment, the Presiding Officer observed as under, “ so far as the claim in respect of regularization of six ( 6 ) workmen is concerned, now there exists no dispute as they have already been regularized ”. 3 WP 428.2010 - ( J ) 4. The Presiding Officer did not deal with the aspect about incidental matter pursuance to the regularization as contemplated U/s 10 ( 4 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. 5. Mr. C.R.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matters incidental to regularization should also have been dealt with by the Presiding Officer. By not doing so, the Presiding Officer has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 6. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner was regularized, nothing was left to be decided and even as per the circulars issued from time to time by the respondents, the petitioner would not be entitled for anything. 7. Be that as it may. When a reference was made by the Govt. to the CGIT, then in such circumstance, it was incumbent upon the authority to decide the complete reference in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act. The Reference would not only include the matter of regularization but would also include the matters incidental to the regularization. 8. From the perusal of the impugned Judgment, it is manifest that 4 WP 428.2010 - ( J ) only on the ground that the petitioner has been regularized, the Presiding Officer has not dealt with the incidental matters 9. In light of the above, it would be in fitness of things to direct the Presiding Officer, CGIT, Nagpur to decide the matter i.e. incidental matter to the regularization in respect of the petitioner. 10. In the result, I direct the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur to decide the matter incidental to the regularization in respect of the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents. The parties shall appear before the Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur on 5/7/2011. The Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur shall decide the matter within the period of six ( 6 ) months from the date of appearance of the parties. 11. Rule is accordingly made absolute with aforesaid directions. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 428.2010 - ( J )