1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD writ petition NO. 7583/2009 Prabhakar s/o Laxman Rajurkar ...Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. ... Shri A.D Sugdare, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.N. Kendre, Advocate for respondents. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. Date : 17th November, 2009 Per Court. :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by the learned presiding officer, Labour Court thereby partly granting the award in favour of the present petitioner. Reference was made to the learned Labour Court by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, since there was dispute as to whether the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 1st October 1984. In the said reference, though the learned Labour Court answered that the termination was illegal, held; instead of granting relief of reinstatement, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to grant 2 compensation to the petitioner. 2. Shri Sugdare the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the learned Labour Court while holding that, the petitioner was illegally terminated, has erred in only granting compensation instead of reinstatement. 3. It is to be noted that, the alleged termination of 1984 was complained for the first time before Labour Court in the year 2005. The learned lower court while refusing the relief of reinstatement, found that the period of more than 23 years has lapsed from termination. It has further been found that the Unit where present petitioner was working, was also closed decade back. While granting compensation instead of reinstatement, the learned Labour Court relied on “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arjunlal Rajak” (LLJ 2006, 104) and in the case of “Ministry of Textile v. Murari Lal” (2008 II CLR 784). In that view of the matter, no interference in the order passed by learned Labour court is warranted. Hence, the petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] tsk/wp7583.09 3