WP/10374/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10374 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai ... Petitioner V/s. P.N. Wadkar ... Respondent Mr. G.A. Karmarkar i/b. Mr. G.S. Hegde for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 17 TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 6th April, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Sangli in Revision Application (ULP) No.16 of 2009. By this order, the Industrial Court has granted the respondent-workman compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This compensation has been quantified as 50% of the back-wages which would have been payable to the respondent- workman. 2. The Labour Court, Sangli in Complaint (ULP) No.116 of 1987 has held that the petitioner-Corporation had committed an unfair labour practice by dismissing the respondent-workman from service from 4th December, 1997. However, since the respondent-workman had attained the age of superannuation during the WP/10374/2010 2 pendency of the complaint, the Labour Court directed that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to him as compensation. It must be noted here that the petitioner-Corporation had not challenged the finding of the Labour Court that it had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by dismissing the respondent-workman on 4th December, 1997. 3. The Industrial Court has for cogent reasons held that the amount awarded as compensation by the Labour Court was paltry and has, therefore, enhanced the same. 4. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there was no material on record to establish that the respondent was unemployed after he was dismissed and was therefore entitled to back-wages. This submission is fallacious. The Labour Court has granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Instead of quantifying the compensation with an arbitrary figure, the Labour Court has directed that an amount equal to 50% back-wages should be paid as compensation. 5. The Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected.