1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7306 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 7307 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7306 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 7307 OF 2010 *** 1. Learned A.G.P. points out that Executive Engineer who has approached this Court in present petition should have been served with notice of Reference proceedings in IDA Reference Nos.53 and 59 of 2005. The notices were, however, served on some other department i.e. Executive Engineer, Works Department and hence petitioner did not get opportunity to contest the matter. On earlier occasion this Court, therefore, asked the petitioners to verify whether Respondents have worked with them. Today learned A.G.P. wants to show to this Court certain N.M.R. which indicate that names of present Respondents do not figure therein. 2. Shri Jadhavar for respective workman 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7306 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 7307 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. strongly opposed prayers in this writ petition. According to him, the notice was served as per description of petitioner in Reference and a competent officer appeared before Labour Court, engaged Advocate and matter was contested. He further invites attention to the fact that after the Labour Court delivered Award on 2nd January, 2009 an application for setting it aside was moved on 29th April, 2009 and that application has been rejected on 12th June, 2009. In this view of the matter, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 3. The application for setting aside Award moved by petitioners before Labour Court reveal that the Reference proceedings were not contested by competent head of the department i.e. employer. The department has blamed workmen for giving wrong information to the Court. However, this cannot be 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7306 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 7307 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. accepted. The officer of that department has in fact appeared before the Labour Court, engaged an Advocate and that Advocate also contested the matter. In other words, the public revenue has been spent for contesting the matter. In this situation, grievance that workmen mislead Labour Court cannot be accepted. 4. However, in view of the N.M.R. sought to be produced, it is apparent that attention of Labour Court could not be invited to relevant material. It prima facie appears that petitioner Executive Engineer was not served with the notice or they did not appear before Labour Court. The respective workman claims to have worked from 1989 till 1992 i.e. for about four years. Considering the nature of employment with petitioner and these facts I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to approach Labour Court and to point out 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7306 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 7307 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. correct position to it. The Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. Hence, it is in public interest that correct facts are pointed out to Labour Court and then Labour Court decides the issue in accordance with law. 5. However, the Respondent/ workman cannot be made to suffer for said purpose. Hence, petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to respective Respondent by 15th June, 2011 by depositing the same before Labour Court at Latur. If the costs are so deposited the Respondent/ workman is free to withdraw the same. 6. Subject to such deposit, the impugned Award dated 2nd January, 2009 in Reference IDA No.53 and 59 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Proceedings in those Reference proceedings are restored back to 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7306 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 7307 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the file of Labour Court, Latur. Parties are directed to appear before that Court on 11th May, 2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. 7. If the costs are so deposited, Labour Court shall permit petitioner to file appropriate written statement and then shall attempt to decide the Reference as early as possible and in any case before 31st December, 2011. If the costs are not so deposited, the impugned Awards dated 2nd January, 2009 shall stand revived. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:20/04/2011. ans/7306