1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3788 OF 2008 The Executive Engineer, Warna Road and Building, Division – Warnavati, Tal. Shirala, District Sangli. ..Petitioner. Vs. Ravaji Bapu Khot ..Respondent. .... Mr. V.D. Patil for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 8th October, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service though without backwages and that order has been confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court. The workman was initially employed as a casual worker and in that capacity he continued to work from 21st December, 1979 until 5th May, 1986. His services were terminated by the order dated 10th October, 1986 on the ground of absence but with retrospective effect from 5th May, 1986. The Labour Court had observed that it had come in the evidence that the complainant workman was residing at Kanoli 2 village which has been acquired by the Government for public purposes in 1979 and another land was given to the complainant at village Kurlap in 1985 where he shifted. The workman stated in his evidence that his father had expired during the process of shifting, as a result of which he had not remained present. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the workman. Though an effort was made to show that a notice to show cause was issued, the Labour Court observed that no documentary evidence was produced on the record to show that the show cause notice was served on the workman. The Labour Court was of the view that even if a case of abandonment of service was to be established, it was necessary for the employer to furnish due notice to the employee calling upon him to report for duty. The Labour Court has also observed that it is an admitted position that the name of the workman has been taken on the Converted Regular Temporary (CRT) establishment upon the orders of the Government of Maharashtra. 2. The order of the Labour Court has been confirmed in revision. The order passed by the Labour Court is correct and does not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the 3 Constitution. The services of the workman were sought to be dispensed with on the ground of absenteeism which constitutes an act of misconduct. However, admittedly neither was any notice to show case given to the workman nor were any disciplinary proceedings held. The workman has since been given the benefit of being taken on the Converted Regular Temporary establishment by the state government. In these circumstances, the order of reinstatement does not warrant any interference. The Labour Court has in the considered exercise of it discretion declined to award backwages. The approach of the Labour Court was balanced and fair. No case for interference has been made out under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. *****