1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7011 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4313 OF 2001 Savalram s/o SahebraoTejnikar and ors. ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the applicants (orig.petitioners) Smt. Sadhana Jadhav, advocate for respondent no.2 Smt. B.R.Khekale, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3 ..... Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Dated : 15 th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1 Perused. 2 2 The applicants submit that their land came to be acquired by respondent no.1 for the purpose of construction of Jaikwadi project and they were issued necessary certificates in that respect. The applicants therefore, submit that they or their nominees were eligible for Government service. The applicants submit that they were appointed as workmen by respondent no.2 as project affected persons and they joined the services on 9.4.1988. The applicants further submit that they were continued in service without any interruption or break and had completed 240 days in their respective services in the calendar year. Even the applicants also submit that they had gained the status of permanency after completion of five years service and their proposal for the purpose of bringing them on C.R.T.E. was submitted to the Government. 3 However, it is the contention of the applicants that on that background respondent no.2 issued termination notices on 25.10.1996 suddenly to the applicants without following the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and also without following the other mandatory provisions of standing model orders. Being aggrieved by the said notices, the present applicants filed common complaint (ULP) NO. 158 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Aurangabad and after hearing both the parties 3 it granted stay on 17.12.1996. 4 Being aggrieved by the said stay order, present non- applicants authorities preferred Revision No.1 of 1997 before the learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, who issued directions to the Labour Court to decide the complaint before December, 1977. Accordingly, learned Labour Court heard the complaint, but it is the contention of the applicants that the said application was dismissed on 26.2.2001 without taking into consideration the services rendered by the present applicants for about 15 years and also without considering that they were nominees of project affected persons. The applicants challenged the said decision before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by filing Revision No. 22 of 2001, however, the same came to be dismissed on 11.1.2001. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, the applicants have preferred Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2001 before this court, wherein Rule was issued and the matter was expedited and said Writ Petition is still pending for final hearing. 5 The applicants point out that present Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2001 filed by the applicants is almost identical on facts with Writ Petition Nos. 4667, 4668 and 4768 of 2001 and while 4 granting Rule in the said Writ Petitions, this court had granted interim relief on 26.11.2001 in the said Writ Petitions, but same was not granted in present Writ Petition NO. 4313 of 2001 filed by the present applicants and as such the services of the applicants herein could not be continued and, therefore, they are out of service presently. It is also submitted by the applicants that subsequently Writ Petition Nos. 4667, 4668 and 4768 of 2001 were disposed of taking consent terms on record. However, it is the contention of the applicants that unfortunately though the applicants are almost similarly situated to the position of those petitioners in the above referred three Writ Petitions, they could not be benefited because their Writ Petition was simply admitted and no interim relief was granted therein, and resultantly, they are out of service. 6 The applicants further point out that in the above referred Writ Petition Nos. 4667, 4668 and 4768 of 2001 orders were passed by this court on 4.2.2004 and also on 21.4.2004 and by order dated 21.4.2004 after filing the consent terms, the said Writ Petitions came to be disposed of. It is the contention of the applicants that since they are out of service, the applicants as well as their family members are in financial doldrums. In the circumstances, the applicants pray that necessary directions may 5 be issued in present Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2001 in tune with the orders passed while disposing of Writ Petition Nos. 4667, 4668 and 4768 of 2001 on 4.2.2004 and 21.4.2004. 7 Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 8 Mrs. Sadhana Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondent no2. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 9 Considering the rival submissions, at the out set, it is apparent that the applicants in the present Writ Petition and the petitioners in above referred three Writ Petitions are almost situated on the same pedestal except one difference that Rule was issued and interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘E’ was granted by this court on 26.11.2004 in the said three above referred Writ Petitions, which led to the position that the petitioners in those three Writ Petitions were continued in service; but, in the present Writ Petition, only Rule was issued by this court on 19.12.2001, but no interim relief was granted in favour of the applicants/petitioners herein and, therefore, resultantly the applicants herein were not continued in their respective services. 6 10 On the afore said background, it is submitted that consent terms were filed in the above referred Writ Petition Nos. 4667, 4668 and 4768 of 2001 on 21.7.2004, since the applicants in the said Writ Petitions were in service and accordingly the said three Writ Petitions came to be disposed of on 21.7.2004. However, since the applicants in present Writ Petition were not in service, it is expressed that consent terms as filed in above referred three Writ Petitions cannot be filed in the present Writ Petition. 11 In view of the facts of the matter and on the afore said background and also considering the contents of the present application, since the applicants herein are almost situated in the same position in parity with the petitioners in the afore said three Writ Petitions in respect of their services, except the fact that the said petitioners in those three Writ Petitions had interim relief in their favour and were continued in their respective services; but the applicants in the present Writ Petition had no interim relief in their favour and, therefore, they were not continued in their services, it is for the parties in the present petition to explore possibility of filing consent terms as filed in above referred three petitions and it is the prerogative of respondents to consider the said aspects and to take positive steps adopting sympathetic 7 approach in the said direction and respondents may take appropriate suitable steps, if any, in Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2001, accordingly, at the earliest, preferably within the period of three months, in accordance with law. 12 Civil Application No. 7011 of 2009 stands disposed of accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) dbm/ca7011.09