1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 249 OF 2007 Village Panchayat of Collem, Collem, Taluka Sanguem, Goa, (presently through its Administrator, Mr. Shantaram Svlo Velip) ... Petitioner V/s 1. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 2. Secretary (Law), Law Department, Govt. of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 3. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Govt. of Goa, Shramshakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa. 4. Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Govt. of Goa, Shramshakti Bhawan, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa. 5. Director of Panchayats, Govt. of Goa, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. 6. Director of Accounts, Govt. of Goa, Directorate of Accounts Building, Near Adil Shah Palace, Panaji, Goa. 7. Mr. Vasant Gopal Mapari son of Gopal Mapari, Bazaarwaddo, Collem, Taluka Sanguem, Goa. .... Respondents 2 Mr. L.S. Salkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Govt. Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. A. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.7. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 24 th JANUARY, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. Respondent No.7 was an employee of the Petitioner. Having approached the Industrial Tribunal as regards termination of his services, the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 25/07/1996 held that his termination w.e.f. 23/12/1983 was illegal and unjustified. Respondent No. 7 was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential reliefs with a rider that the amount paid towards back wages would be adjusted towards the amount due to him. 3. Subsequently, the Petitioner and Respondent No.7 entered into the agreement dated 17/02/1998 by virtue of which the Petitioner and Respondent No.7, inter alia, agreed that Respondent No.7 would receive a sum of Rs. 65,000/- by way of full and final satisfaction of the said award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 25/07/1996. 4. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 7 approached the Commissioner, 3 Labour and Employment, and made a claim regarding his back wages and the Commissioner by the order dated 30/03/2007, impugned in this Writ Petition held that an amount of Rs. 1,57,871/- was held payable to the Respondent No.7. According to Respondent No. 7 his claim was Rs. 2,67,281/-. 5. The Commissioner, Labour and Employment, has not at all considered the effect of the agreement entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 on 17/02/1998, i.e. whether in the light of the said agreement, Respondent No. 7 was entitled to make any further claim. Similarly, the Commissioner has also not spelt out as to how he has arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,57,871/- as payable to Respondent No. 7 as against his claim of Rs. 2,67,281/-. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and matter remanded to the Labour Commissioner with a direction to give a finding, in the light of the above. The matter be decided within a period of eight weeks. 6. Rule is made absolute on the above terms, with no order as to costs. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-