1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.A.Z. NO.400/2010 IN L.P.A. ST. NO.6145/2010 IN W.P. NO. 1883/2001 (D) [Executive Engineer and another .vrs. Jagdish Namdeo Arbat] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the applicants/appellants, Shri Y.S. Gorle, Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2011. In view of subsequent development, we have heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants as also Shri Y.S. Gorle, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent on condonation of delay as also on merits. It appears that the respondent-employee has been given reinstatement with continuity of service by the Labour Court on 29.7.1995. This was maintained by the Industrial Court in Revision under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act on 7.4.2001. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No.1883/2001 on 5.8.2009 2 filed by the present applicant/appellant. Thereafter, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 208 days. Both the counsel jointly inform that the respondent had given up his claim for wages after 29.7.1995 by giving undertaking dated 8.1.2010 and, thereafter, he has been reinstated from 28.7.2011. Shri Gorle, learned counsel for the respondent states that those wages were waived with the hope that work would be provided immediately and here actual work has been made available near about after 16 months. He, therefore, insist for payment of wages for the said period of 16 months. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the respondent had worked from 1.8.1988 to 6.7.1989 and only because of finding of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, relief has been granted. According to him, in this situation, grant of continuity of service is also unwarranted. In the alternative and without prejudice, learned counsel further argues that being government establishment, the decision to reinstate was required to be taken after following due procedure and that has taken after about 16 months. He, therefore, prays for condonation of delay and also for admitting Letters Patent Appeal. 3 The Labour Court as also the Industrial Court have found that notice u/s 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act has been served upon the respondent was vague and the contention of the applicant that amount of compensation was kept ready for payment to workmen has not been substantiated. This finding of facts have been maintained by the learned Single Judge. Not only this, the Labour Court as also Industrial Court whose judgments were assailed before the learned Single Judge were not joined as party respondents. Thus, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Muhammed Enamul Haque .vrs. Muhammad Hussain, 1968 (6) Mh.L.J. NOC Page 1 and full bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari and others .vrs. Vishwanath Champat Naik and another, 2011 (5) Mh.L.J. 193, it is apparent that the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India were not properly invoked. In this position, petition as filed, could not have been treated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Letters Patent Appeal, as presented, is misconceived. However, as the appellants/applicants have already reinstated, we permit the respondent to move appropriate application for granting his salary from 8.1.2010 to 4 28.7.2011. Shri Gorle states that salary after 28.7.2011 is also not paid. Shri Patil makes a statement that salary for the period after 28.7.2011 will be released immediately. If the respondent workmen makes representation for payment of salary for the period prior to 28.7.2011 i.e. from 8.1.2010 onwards, the same shall be considered properly. At this stage, Shri Gorle, in order to end the controversy has agreed to accept 50% salary for the said period. We direct the applicants to release 50% salary for period from 8.1.2010 to 28.7.2011 within a period of four months from today. These directions are issued in the interest of justice and to put an end to litigation which is going on since 1989. With these directions, we dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal as misconceived. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande