1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1290 OF 1991 1) The State of Maharashtra 2) The Executive Engineer, Kukadi Irrigation Division No. 7, Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ... Petitioners. Versus 1) Vasant Rambhau Bhosale, At post Pimpalgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. -------- Smt. K.G. Patil,Assistant Government Pleader, for Petitioner No. 1. Shri. G.B. Rajale, Advocate for Petitioner No. 2. Shri.S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. -------- CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE: 06th JANUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1) This Writ Petition takes exception to the Award and order dated 14-01-1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No. 96 of 1988. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2) The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik Division, Nashik made reference to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar Under Section 10(1) read with 12(5) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication of the industrial dispute between the workman and the employer i.e., between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein. The respondent No. 1 herein was referred as a second party and the petitioner herein was referred first party before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar. The second party i.e. respndent No. 1 herein Vasant Rambhau Bhosale filed his statement of claim under Exhibit U-1 stating therein that, the first party has terminated his services illegally with effect from 01-09-1987. At the 3 time of termination the respondent No. 1 herein was working as Typist and he was getting Rs. 950/- towards his monthly wages. According to the respondent No. 1 he was appointed as Mustering Assistant with effect from 17-01-1984 to 06-01-1985 he was working as Junior Clerk and from 07-01-1985 to 31-01-1985 as Typist. His entire service with the first party was continuous and unblemished. According to him, while terminating his service notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was not offered to him. No show cause notice or charge sheet was given to him nor the domestic inquiry was conducted against him while terminating his services. According to him, no principle of seniority is followed while his termination. The junior persons to him are retained by the first party and newly appointed persons are also in service of the first party, and his termination is only with a view to deprive him from the benefit of permanency. It is further submitted that, the work which is 4 performed by him was of permanent nature. 3) Though the petitioner herein who was first party was served with the notice under postal acknowledgment Exhibit-4 but failed to appear before the Court. Hence an order against the first party was passed under Exhibit O dated 27-01-1999. 4) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar framed necessary issues for its determination / consideration, and by short Award and order held that, since the petitioner No. 1 herein had not filed any reply to the main claim of the respondent No. 1, there is no reason to disbelieve the contents of affidavit and to give the relief as prayed by the second party. Therefore, reference was allowed by the Labour court and the petitioner herein was directed to continue the respondent No. 1 in the service with continuity and back wages till the date of reinstatement of the second party. 5 5) Being aggrieved by the Award and order dated 14-01-1991 in Reference (IDA) No. 96 of 1988, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 6) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, since the Labour Court, proceeded exparty against the petitioner, the petitioner may be given opportunity to context the matter on merits, by remanding the matter back to the Labour Court. It is further submitted that, statement of claim which was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein was not received by the petitioner along with notice. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the other grounds taken in the petition and prayed that, the matter may be remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. 7) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, the petitioner herein 6 though received notice did not attend before the Labour court, no reply was filed no documents were filed in support of their case, and therefore, this Court may not interfere at this stage when, the petitioner has completed more than twenty years service as a Typist with the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 would submit that the petition is devoid of any merits. The learned counsel for respondent invited my attention to the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply by the respondent No. 1 herein. 8) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No. 1 at length, I have also carefully perused the Award and order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedngar. On Perusal of earlier orders passed by this Court, at the time of hearing of admission, it appears that, this Court granted Rule. However, interim relief was refused. It appears that, respondent No. 1 herein 7 has continued in the service as Typist and it is also reported that, the petitioner is working as “Mojnidar” at present. On Carefully perused of the Award and Order, it clearly emerges that, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar decided the reference merely on the ground that, the petitioner did not context the reference and averments made in statement of claim of the respondent No. 1 went unchallenged. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar, has not examined the matter on merits, but by short Award and Order allowed the reference in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein. I find, considerable substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that no copy of the statement of claim along with notice was received by the petitioner herein, and as a result, the petitioner did not participate in the reference. Therefore, in my considered view that, the Award and Order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar, 8 deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Ahamednagar. The impugned Award and Order datd 14-01-1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar is quashed and set aside. The mater is restore to the file of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar shall give full opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 and then decide the matter finally. It will be open for the parties to agitate before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar about subsequent developments / events taken place after filing the above Writ Petition. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the status of the respondent as on today shall not be disturbed. It means, respondent No. 1 herein who is working as “Mojnidar” will continue to enjoying the post and benefits as he is enjoy as on today. The protection is granted to the respondent No. 1 9 will continue till the matter is decided by the Labour Court afresh and four weeks thereafter. 9) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 jointly submits that, some amount is already deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court and same may be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent No. 1 herein with accrued interest thereon. On oral prayer made by the respondent No. 1 herein he is permitted to withdraw the amount laying in fixed deposit with interest accrued thereon. With above observations the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. The Rule made absolute in above terms. 10) Civil Application if any, stands disposed of in view of the disposal of the main Writ Petition. (S.S.SHINDE, J.) 10 sdm/wp1290.91 11