1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2539 OF 2010. The Dy. Conservator of Forest, Pandharkawada and another. -: VERSUS :- Vishwanath Istari Korewar. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. Heard Shri S.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioner. This Court has issued notice for final disposal. Though the respondent is served, he has chosen not to appear. On last date also there was no appearance and hence one chance was given to him. This Court has already granted order of status quo on 30.07.2010. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel has pointed out that after the judgment dated 21.09.1990 delivered by the Labour Court, Amravati in Complaint ULP No. 239/1990, on 2 07.04.2000 the respondent has been reinstated and he is continuing in service. He states that before the Labour Court, petitioner could not participate in the matter and was proceeded exparte. He therefore, seeks leave to participate before the Labour Court by remanding the matter back to it. He has fairly pointed out that similar request was also made to the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court has rejected the same. The employee claims that he joined the services on 01.07.1979 and worked till 30.04.1990. He was terminated on 22.04.1990 without any intimation or written order. The Labour Court proceeded exparte on 20.08.1990. In this situation, the Labour Court granted him reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. The Industrial Court has maintained it. The Industrial Court has only given a reason that it would be painful to remand the matter back, and no reasons are assigned about the fault on the part of the petitioner in not appearing before the Labour Court. The Industrial Court has also not considered why grant of full back wages is in accordance with the law. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met with by remanding the matter back to the Labour Court and to point out entitlement of respondent to back wages. Though Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel has 3 insisted that the respondent did not complete 240 days of continuous service in present service, as the employee after his reinstatement on 07.04.2000 put in more than 10 years of service as on today, I am not inclined to keep all the issues open on the request of the petitioner. Only for the purpose of finding out the entitlement of respondent no.1 to back wages, the impugned order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati is quashed and set aside. Similarly, the judgment dated 21.09.1990 passed by the Labour Court, Amravati is also set aside to enable the Labour Court, Amravati to find out entitlement of respondent to back wages. If the matter has to be transferred to Labour Court, Yavatmal, the Labour Court Amravati will take appropriate steps in this respect. As already observed, the grant of reinstatement with continuity granted to respondent no.1 is not interfered with. Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.