(1) WP. 1365.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1365 OF 2010 Pravara Medical Trust, Loni .. Petitioner VERSUS Appasaheb S/o Rambhau Gagre .. Respondent Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. L.V. Sangeet, Advocate for the respondent no.1 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner is a trust. The respondent was illegally terminated from service. He was working as Watchman with the petitioner since 10.8.1986. The termination/retrenchment was effected on 1.3.1993. The respondent therefore filed complaint (ULP) no. 81 of 1993. The Labour Court held that the termination was illegal and the (2) WP. 1365.2010 petitioner adopted unfair labour practices. The Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent as a Watchman with continuity in service and also to pay him amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of backwages. The respondent preferred revision (ULP) 43 of 2005. The revisional Court held that the respondent was entitled to more amount of backwages to the extent of Rs.14,500/- besides what was awarded by the Labour Court. The award was accordingly modified by the revisional Court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that on 8.8.1995, amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the respondent under a receipt executed by him and at the same time he had executed an undertaking to the effect that he will not demand anything more and will not file any legal proceedings. It is contended that the respondent waived the rights and as such was not entitled to anything more. I do not agree. The legal rights of the respondent, to seek legal remedy, cannot be curtailed or waived. If he had the legal right to recover more amount of the backwages then he (3) WP. 1365.2010 could not be estopped from doing so by obtaining certain writing from him while making payment of Rs.10,000/-. The revisional Court seems to have duly considered the relevant aspects and has observed that though the respondent was ready and willing to perform his duty yet the petitioner had not allowed him to join the duty. It was also found that the petitioner attempted to execute hire and fire policy. 4. In this view of the matter, and having regard to the fact that the impugned order is based on material placed on record, no interference is warranted. Petition dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp