1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1769 OF 2008 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praishad, Thane. ..Petitioner. Vs. Mrs.Shakuntala M. Jadhav. ..Respondent. Mr.C.S.Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr.B.P.Varma i/by J.J.Panderkar for the Respondent. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a petition filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane impugning an order passed in Complaint (ULP) No.363 of 2005 directing reinstatement of the employee complainant with effect from 17.4.1998 and granting back wages to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,07,500/-.The record indicates that the employee was first appointed on daily wages from March, 1989 and on 6.2.1991 an appointment order was issued. According 2 to the petitioner, the appointment order was fraudulent and the employee had inserted her name as an additional candidate. Since fraud was detected after 8 years, respondent-employee was terminated in 1998 by an order dated 7.3.1998. The employee raised dispute before the Govt. Labour Officer and since the dispute could not be resolved, the Labour Officer referred the matter to the Labour Court, Thane. It appears that before the Labour Court, Thane, present petitioner did not file his written statement or lead any evidence. In the circumstances, by an award dated 12.8.2004, the reference was allowed and the employer was directed to reinstate the workman will full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 17.4.1998. Since this award was not implemented, workman filed Complaint (ULP) No.263/2005 alleging unfair labor practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTP & PULP Act,1971. In the Industrial Court also petitioner did not file his written statement and therefore, complaint was allowed on 1.3.2007. The 3 background of this matter indicates gross negligence on the part of the employer. It is contended that he should be allowed to file written statement before the Labour Court. It is too late as employer was granted full opportunity in accordance with law. No proper reasons are given as to why the employer did not contest the reference before the Labour Court or even subsequently the complaint before the Industrial Court. Hence, petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)