-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 382 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2803 OF 2006 Rohidas B. Duraphe ... Appellant versus Mazgaon Dock Ltd. ...Respondent Sarvasri Shailesh S. Pathak and T.R. Yadav for the appellant. Sri Vinod Tayade with Sri R.K. Rele, instructed by Sri Piyush Shah for the respondent. CORAM: SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATE: JUNE 30, 2008. P.C. Heard. The appellant challenges the order dated 14th December, 2007 passed in Notice of Motion No. 382 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2803 of 2006. The learned single Judge by the impugned order has refused to entertain the petition under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the award passed by the Labour Court is not for reinstatement of the appellant in the services but essentially for payment of compensation. -2- 2. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant that the award passed by the Labour Court is even understood by the respondent as the Award with directions for reinstatement of the appellant and there is a specific challenge in that regard in the petition filed by the respondent. 3. The operative portion of the award passed by the Labour Court reads thus: “ AWARD i) The reference is partly allowed. ii) The 2nd party workman, Shri Rohidas Bhagoji Duraphe is entitled to get 50% of back wages w.e.f. 27.3.1998 till today. Iii) The 2nd party workman, Shri Rohidas Bhagoji Duraphe is entitled to get 40% wages from today till the date of retirement on supernnauation by way of compensation instead of reinstatement. iv) The 1st party is at liberty to allow the 2nd Party to report for work instead of paying compensation, if the company desires so. v) The 2nd party is entitled to get continuity of services w.e.f. 27.3.1998 and he is also entitled to get all legal dues payable to him.” -3- 4. With reference to the said award, the learned single Judge by his order dated 27th June, 2007, held that “Perusal of the operative part of the award clearly discloses that no order of reinstatement has been passed in favour of the respondent and only compensation has been directed to be paid to him. Thus, provisions of Section 17-B would not strictly apply to the facts of the present case”. 5. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has refused to grant any relief holding that “ ...by order dated 27th June, 2007 in Notice of Motion No. 288 of 2007 for reasons stated in the said order, this prayer has specifically not been granted by this Court. No case is made out for re- consideration of the same prayer again in this Notice of Motion”. 6. Apparently, the learned single Judge has dismissed the Notice of Motion by the impugned order on the ground that the earlier Notice of Motion taken out for similar relief was rejected on the ground that an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not maintainable and the said order has neither been challenged nor any case made out for reconsideration of the view taken while passing the said order. Considering the same, no fault can be found with the impugned order as a party is not entitled to take out more than one Notice of Motion for the same -4- relief. Once a Notice of Motion has been rejected earlier and the same is not challenged in the manner which was required to be challenged and has attained finality during the pendency of the petition, question of entertaining second Notice of Motion for the same relief does not arise. 7. In any case, the Labour Court Award nowhere discloses any direction for reinstatement as such. The observation in clause (iv) of the operative portion of the award is regarding liberty granted to the management to reinstate the appellant in case the management so desires and in case the management does not want to grant monetary benefits to the appellant. Being so, the observations made in relation to the nature of the relief granted by the Labour Court to the appellant in order dated 27th June, 2007 cannot be found fault with. In any case, the said observation has attained finality during the pendency of the petition and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to take a different view in the impugned order. 8. We also find in the Award of the Labour Court the following finding having been passed. “Nextly in my opinion though the workman is entitled to be reinstatement, but considering the fact that the 1st party company has lost confidence, it is not desirable to order the 1st -5- party company to reinstate the 2nd party workman. However, the order can be passed to pay compensation......” 9. For the reasons stated above, therefore, we find no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Appeal, therefore, is dismissed. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.