1 W. P. No. 294.93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 294 OF 1993 Dagdu S/o Sadashiv Kamble Age 50 years Occupation unemployed, R/o Mali Ves, Subhash Road Beed. ... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Pravin Wagh,Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P.for respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 6TH MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Counsel. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Award rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference (IDA 54 of 1987). 3. The petitioner alleged that he was employed as 2 W. P. No. 294.93 labour in Yeshwant garden maintained by the Municipal Council, Beed w. e. f. 01.05.1957. He alleged that he was illegally terminated on 21.01.1989. He further alleged that at the time of termination, he was placed in regular pay-scale. He was not served with one month’s notice, nor was paid retrenchment compensation. He was not given any opportunity before termination, therefore, his termination is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, sought reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages. Considering his statement of claim, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour forwarded the Reference to the Labour Court Aurangabad under section 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The petitioner filed his affidavit in support of the statement of his claim. No evidence was adduced by the Municipal Council. The Labour Court rejected the Reference. 5. Heard learned counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3 W. P. No. 294.93 6. None appeared for the respondent No. 1-the Municipal Council. 7. The petitioner filed his affidavit, in support of his statement of claim. His affidavit remained unchallenged. The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Labour Court. Neither reply was filed nor the respondent No.1 has appeared in this Court too. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court held that the Reference was belated. It has been observed by the Labour Court that since,1969 till 1987 the petitioner did not initiate any proceedings against the Municipal Council. The Labour Court further observed that there was no tangible explanation given by the petitioner for such kind of belated action. Another reason ascribed by the Labour Court is that in the communication dated 22.6.1987, there was some reference to resignation tendered by the petitioner on 21st January, 1969. On the basis of copy of such application dated 22.06.1987, which referred to earlier communication dated 21.01.1969, inference was drawn that the petitioner was not terminated from service, but had resigned. So far as the findings of the Labour Court about absence of termination is concerned, 4 W. P. No. 294.93 it may be stated that such inference was drawn without any basis. The copy of application dated 22.06.1987 was not proved to be the document relied upon by the petitioner or proved by the petitioner. Moreover, it is not the case put forth by the Municipal Council that the petitioner had resigned from the service. There is absolutely no record to infer that his service period was brought to an end due to his own resignation and that resignation was validly accepted by the authority. Needless to say, the findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner failed to prove alleged termination is improper and incorrect. 8. In view of the unchallenged testimony of the petitioner, it can not be said that the petitioner was employed by the Municipal Council as daily wager. His services were terminated without following due procedure. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Considering the delay of about 18 years in making the Reference, the Labour Court ought to have granted a reasonable compensation to the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of illegal termination. In the result, 5 W. P. No. 294.93 the petition is partly allowed. Instead of granting relief of reinstatement, which is also not available due to the present age of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be paid compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on account of his illegal termination alongwith interest at the rate of .6% p.a. over the said amount from the date of the Reference application i. e. statement of claim filed by him, till entire amount is paid. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK