WP/6905/1999 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6905 OF 1999 The Deputy Conservator of Forest & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Shriniwas S. Katkole ... Respondent Mr.P.G. Swant, AGP - B Panel, for Petitioners None for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against the award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.1 of 1991. By this award, the Labour Court has directed the Petitioners to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service w.e.f. 15.9.1989 and to pay him 50% of the backwages. 2. The facts in this case are as follows: The respondent was initially appointed on 7.4.1987 as a Casual Workman and was being paid wages on a daily rate in the nursery run by the petitioners at Thane. After August 1989, no work was available in that nursery and, therefore, the petitioners directed the respondent to work either at Murbad or Wada. The petitioners contend that the respondent did not bother to join duty either at Murbad or Wada. He instead WP/6905/1999 : 2 : raised a demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. That demand was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Thane in Reference (IDA) No.1 of 1991. 3. In their written statement, the petitioners contended before the Labour Court that they had not terminated the services of the respondent but had in fact directed him to work either at Murbad or Wada since no work was available in the nursery at Thane. The petitioners have also contended that the respondent had failed to report for duty at either of these places although the work was available in both the places. It was also contended that the respondent being a daily rated employee was not entitled to any relief as they were no sanctioned posts. 4. Evidence was led before the Labour Court and by award dated 27.2.1998 the Labour Court directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 50% backwages. 5. While admitting the petition, this Court stayed the award with liberty to the respondent to seek wages u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act by preferring an appropriate application to this Court. It appears that the respondent did file a civil application No.724 of 2001 for payment of wages u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. This application was allowed on 13.6.2001. 6. The petitioners preferred Civil Application No.1565 of 2004 for recalling the order for suitably modifying the order dated 13.6.2001 passed in the earlier civil application. The civil application was dismissed. WP/6905/1999 : 3 : 7. There is no material on record to indicate that the orders of this Court directing the petitioners to pay wages u/s 17B have been complied. Though the civil application for recalling the earlier order was dismissed, the petitioner did not file an appeal to challenge the order passed on application u/s 17B on the ground that the respondent was working elsewhere. In fact the learned AGP has stated that the interim order has not been implemented. 8. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged. No costs.