1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 310 OF 2009 Alfred S/o James Damiel Gamare Versus Janardhan S/o Madhavrao Udamale, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 310 OF 2009 Alfred S/o James Damiel Gamare Versus Janardhan S/o Madhavrao Udamale, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Mr. S. V. Warad, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B. B. Yange, Advocate for the Respondent. **** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWA, J. DATED: 9th DECEMBER, 2010. 1. Heard finally. By order dated 4th November, 1995 recorded by learned Judge, Labour Court at Ahmednagar, he directed as under: “It is hereby declared that the respondents have followed unfair labour practice under Item-1 (b) & (f) of Schedule-IV of MRTU & PULP Act. The respondents are directed to desist from permanently by granting a continuity in service to the compainant Shri Alfred Jams Gamare from the date of his termination. The respondents are directed 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 310 OF 2009 Alfred S/o James Damiel Gamare Versus Janardhan S/o Madhavrao Udamale, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. to pay the backwages to the complainant from 10/7/1989 till 25/4/1991 at the rate of his last drawn wages. In the crucial circumstances of the case, I direct that both the parties shall bear their own costs.” 2. This order was tested by the Respondent M.S.R.T.C. in the writ and lost, however, L.P.A. is preferred by the Respondent being L.P.A. No.12 of 2009 (arising out of writ petition NO.3815 of 1996) and by order dated 11th October, 2010 statement of learned counsel Mr. Yenge as reflected in para 4 of the said order was recorded, which reads as under: “4. Shri Yenge, learned counsel for Appellant Corporation, on instructions, submits that the Corporation is not pressing challenge to the order of continuity of service but the Appellant raises objection to grant of back-wages to the Respondent, which order, according to him, is contrary to the well established principles of law.” 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 310 OF 2009 Alfred S/o James Damiel Gamare Versus Janardhan S/o Madhavrao Udamale, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 3. Now, the controversy revolves to the interpretation of the term “order of continuity of service”. Mr. Yenge for the Corporation informs the term “continuity of service” would not mean for financial benefits after resumption of the duties but it will be percolating for amount of retiral benefits of employee. In support of this, he has relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of “A.P.S.R.T.C. Versus S. Narsagoud” reported in 2003 DGLS (Soft.) 39 : 2003 (2) SCC 212. The particular paragraph No.9 reads as under: “9. We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 310 OF 2009 Alfred S/o James Damiel Gamare Versus Janardhan S/o Madhavrao Udamale, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorised absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorised absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with benefit of continuity in service.” 4. Mr. Warad, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits, though the petitioner has suffered absence, having been put in jail, but that by itself will not be preventing the petitioner for entitlement of continuity of service in the form of monetary gains. 5. This Court is required to deal, whether 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 310 OF 2009 Alfred S/o James Damiel Gamare Versus Janardhan S/o Madhavrao Udamale, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. there is contempt. In contempt the disputed question of fact raised by Mr. Warad, in the light of above legal position, need not be addressed by this Court. If the petitioner is entitled for financial and monetary benefits by interpreting the terms “continuity of service”, he is at liberty to get it clarified from the learned Division Bench, in L.P.A. or from the appropriate Court. For the present, there is no contempt. Contempt petition is dismissed. Respondent discharged. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:09/12/2010. ans/310