WP/1503/1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1503 OF 1999 Standard Drum & Bucket Factory, Bombay ... Petitioner V/s. Maruti Tukaram Sawant & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. S.G. Kudle for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7 TH DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an Award passed by the 4th Labour Court, Mumbai on 19th August, 1998 in Reference (IDA) No.75 of 1995. On 8th November, 1993, the petitioner appointed the respondent No.1 in service. According to the petitioner, this was a leave vacancy because their regular employee was on leave. The services of respondent No.1 were discontinued w.e.f. 7th February, 1994, after the regular employee returned. Aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner to terminate his services, the respondent No.1 obtained a Reference, being Reference (IDA) No.75 of 1995, for adjudication of the dispute raised by him for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. 2. The Labour Court, after recoding the evidence of the parties, passed the impugned Award on 19th August, 1998 directing that the petitioner should WP/1503/1999 2 reinstate the respondent No.1 in service with continuity and 75% of back- wages. Aggrieved by the decision of the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It appears from the orders passed by this Court at the stage of admission that the petitioner-employer was willing to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service and the only issue was with respect to back-wages payable to the respondent No.1-workman. Hence, rule was issued and interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (d) restricted only to the question of back- wages. 4. Nobody appears for the respondent No.1, though served. 5. I have perused a copy of the Award and, in my view, the Labour Court has not committed any error by granting reinstatement with continuity of service. The Labour Court has found that there was evidence and other material on record to indicate that the petitioner had employed the respondent No.1 in service right from October, 1990 and not during the leave vacancy which occurred because some other employee was on leave between 8th November, 1993 to 6th February, 1994. After having held that the respondent No.1 had worked continuously from October, 1990 to 7th February, 1994, the Labour Court concluded that there was no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act prior to terminating the services of respondent No. 1. It has rightly held that the respondent No.1 is entitled to reinstatement. WP/1503/1999 3 6. On the question of back-wages, the Labour Court has held that the evidence on record did not establish that the respondent No.1-workman was gainfully employed after he was dismissed by the petitioner. The Labour Court has observed that there was no evidence to establish that the respondent No. 1-workman was earning any income except from working on his own agricultural land. The Labour Court, therefore, granted 75% of back-wages, although it would have been justified in granting full back-wages to the workman. Working on one’s own agricultural land cannot amount to gainful employment and, therefore, the Labour Court, in fact, ought to have granted full back-wages to the respondent No.1-workman. However, the respondent No.1-workman has not challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court. 7. The Award which has been impugned in this Petition need not be disturbed in view of the findings of the Labour Court. They are based on the evidence before the Court and cannot be termed as perverse. Thus there is no need to interfere with the award of the Labour Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 9. Rule discharged.