1 wp4698-4762-4451-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4698 OF 2011 The Dy.Conservator of Forest and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Yashwant Krish Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4762 OF 2011 The Dy.Conservator of Forest and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Yashwant Laxman Basre .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2011 The Dy.Conservator of Forest and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Ananda Lahanu Choudhari .. Respondent Mr.A.D.Kango, A.G.P. for the petitioners Mr.K.S.Bapat for the respondents CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 1ST AUGUST, 2011 2 wp4698-4762-4451-11.doc PC: 1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. These petitions have been heard together and are being decided by common judgment. Facts and law involved in these petitions are identical. The affidavit of service is taken on record. 3. Respondents original claimants filed complaint under section 28(1) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 under item 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV seeking permanency in service. 4. It is the case of the respondents that they were working with the petitioners for the last several years on daily wages. They worked for more than 240 days before filing the complaint. 5. Considering the facts and evidence on record, the Labour Court directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondents in service with continuity of service and to pay 75% back wages from the date of termination to them. The operative part of the order dt.31.3.2007 pased by the Labour Court, Nasik reads thus: “1. Complaint (ULP) No.154/2000, 155/2000 and 303/2000 is admitted. 2. I declare that the opponents had terminated to the applicants by adopting unfair labour practice. 3. The opponents shall not act again as such warning to them. 3 wp4698-4762-4451-11.doc 4. The opponents shall reinstate the applicants in the service as it is and with continuity of service and shall give 75% back wages from the date of termination to them. 5. The fulfillment of the above order should be made within two months from today. 6. The copy of this judgment is attached in Complaint (ULP) No.154/2000 and 155/2000.” 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court at Nasik. Those revisions were also dismissed by learned Member of Industrial Court, Nasik on 6.7.2010. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Industrial Court, the petitioners preferred these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly admitted that all these petitioners original complainants are in the service as per the order passed by learned Judge of Labour Court. 9. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the facts involved in these petitions are similar to the facts involved in Writ Petition No.3274 of 2002, Conservator of Forest and Others vs. Savala Dhondipa Pise and other connected matters 4 wp4698-4762-4451-11.doc which have been dismissed by the learned single Judge of this court (Coram: Smt.Justice Nishita Mhatre) by judgment dated 8.9.2010. 10.Since the facts involved in the present writ petitions are similar to the facts involved in Writ Petition No.3274 of 2002 and connected matters, these petitions are disposed of in terms of judgment dated 8.9.2010 passed in writ petition no.3274 of 2002 and other connected petitions. 11.Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)