1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3619 OF 2009 The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Beed & another Petitioners Versus Raghunath s/o Bhagwan Mule & others Respondents Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Shahane, advocate for respondents. ===== CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Heard Mr. Nagargoje, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 Order passed by the learned Judge of the labour court in application Misc. ULP no. . 17/1991 decided on 12-9-2007 which has been confirmed by the revisional court on 10-9-2008 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 Respondents / employees approached the labour court with a grievance as regards their termination of services. Initially, labour court allowed the complaints presented by the employees by order dt.28-2-1989 and directed the petitioner / employer to reinstate the employees with 2 continuity in service and the employees were also held entitled to full backwages. Order passed by the labour court was subjected to challenge before the industrial court in revision petition filed by the employer which came to be dismissed on 9-8-1994. The employer also raised challenge to order by presenting Writ Petition no. 3319/1996 in the High Court which also came to be dismissed on 15-1-1999. Hence, there is finality attached to the order passed by the labour court in respect of issuance of directions to the petitioner / employer to reinstate the employees with benefits of continuity and backwages. As the directions issued by the labour court were not complied with, the employees were constrained to approach the labour court once again seeking compliance of the order. Application presented by the employee bearing no. 17/1991 was allowed by the labour court on 12-9-2007 which order was confirmed by the industrial court considering the revision application filed by the employer. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the circular dt.16-10-2000 issued by the State Government. The circular applies to the class of employees whose matters remain pending for consideration before the courts. However, in the instant matter, prior to issuance of the circular, there was already direction issued by the labour court in respect of reinstatement of employees and payment of backwages in the year 1989 3 and those orders were confirmed upto the High Court. Reliance placed by the employer on the circular issued by the State Government is misplaced. Revision court has considered the revision in its proper perspective and has passed order. No interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition of devoid of substance. Hence stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/wp3619.09.odt