: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4734 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Thru’ The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Nashik .. Petitioner V/s. Usha Laxman Bachhav .. Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango, AGP, for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th September, 2008, passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, in Complaint (ULP) No.262 of 2005, by which the Industrial Court has held that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act). : 2 : 2. The respondent-workman had obtained a Reference for adjudication of her demand in respect of her reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages before the Labour Court, Nashik. This Reference being Reference (IDA) No.20 of 1995 was decided by an Award dated 15th January, 2005. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and to pay her full back wages from 27th April, 1994. Since the Award was not complied with, the respondent-workman had filed the complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. This complaint was filed in August, 2005. A written statement was filed by the petitioner in February, 2006. The Industrial Court after considering the facts and on perusal of the record including the evidence led by the respondent- workman has held that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice. 3. In my opinion, no case for interference has been made out by the learned AGP for the : 3 : petitioner. The only submission of the learned AGP was that the respondent-workman had filed the complaint too quickly even before the petitioner to think about challenging the Award and, therefore, the Award continues to be in existence. This submission has no merit. 4. The Writ Petition is rejected.