1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4929/2009 ( The Manager, New Regal Talkies, Akola -: versus :- Dilip Maroti Bagade ) WRIT PETITION NO. 4930/2009 ( The Manager, New Regal Talkies, Akola -: versus :- Vinod Majadeorao Wasnik ) WRIT PETITION NO. 5025/2009 ( The Manager, New Regal Talkies, Akola -: versus :- laldas Pandurang Kathane ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 5, 2009. Heard Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.T. Harkare, learned counsel for respondents. Writ Petition No. 5025/2009 is not on board. However, Shri Saboo, learned counsel for petitioners has pointed out that on earlier occasion this Court has directed that Writ Petition to be listed along with the present Writ Petitions, hence Writ Petition is taken on board with the consent of learned counsel for petitioners. Shri Harkare, learned counsel for respondent, states that, he has no instructions in so far as Writ Petition No. 5025/2009, is concerned. 2 Shri Saboo, learned counsel states that petitioner – Cinema Theatre is in losses and hence the gate keepers were aware that they are to be retrenched/ terminated. They have started some proceedings before the Labour Office, including a demand for minimum wage and as the situation was not normal, retrenchment notices were forwarded by RPAD. He states that in this situation, merely because notices were forwarded by RPAD, the adverse inference could not have been drawn. He further states that, the notices were along with a demand draft for retrenchment compensation and this show the bonafides of petitioners. If the amount was inadequate, that by itself in such circumstances, could not have been the reason to order reinstatement. He further states that only because of one Imlikar, the violation of “last come” Rule has been recorded, but, he points out that there wee total 4 references and against Imlikar, only one reference could have been at the most allowed, and no relief could have been given in the remaining three matters. He states that, there is thus no violation of Section 25 [g] also. He has invited attention to the fact that 4 senior gate keepers were taken back and hence there was no violation of Section 25[H] in the matter. He therefore contends that entire approach of the Reference Court in the matter is perverse. In any case in the present circumstances, relief of reinstatement ought not to have been granted. Shri Harkare, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand states that the Labour Court has only granted relief of reinstatement and no back wages are granted. He points out that notice of retrenchment was not served at all 3 and hence, there is no question of sufficiency or otherwise of retrenchment compensation, or then violation of last come first go Rule. He further states that, as no seniority list was produced on record and the witness for petitioners accepted that they were not maintaining any musters of the employees like present respondent, Labour Court had no option but to grant relief of reinstatement to all. He further states that, the alleged reason for retrenchment is also not substantiated. I have perused the impugned award with the assistance of both the learned counsel. The Labour Court has not found that the notices of retrenchment were served upon the respondent. It has found that notices were received back with endorsement that the employee was not found at the relevant address. In this connection it has further observed that when employee was in service, notice along with compensation could have been offered to him on spot. The appreciation in relation to junior continued in service is also in the light of the fact that no musters were produced and there was no evidence by management to show inter-se seniority. In this situation, it is apparent that in absence of any material to show that the petitioners had suffered any loss. No exception can be taken to the impugned award. Writ Petitions are therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.