W.P. No.598 OF 2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2010 M/s. Raymer Engineering Corporation ... Petitioner V/s. Shaukilal R. Sharma ... Respondent Mr.V.P. Vaidya for Petitioner Mr.Y.M. Pendse for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 4, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court dated 13.11.2009 in complaint (ULP) No.317 of 2007. This complaint has been filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The respondent workman had filed a complaint before the Labour Court being Complaint (ULP) No.222 of 1998 challenging his termination from service. That complaint was allowed on 14.12.2004. The petitioners were directed to desist from engaging in unfair labour practices complained of. They were further directed to pay full backwages to the complainant w.e.f. 28.2.1998 till reinstatement alongwith the consequential benefits. 2. As the backwages were not paid to the workmen, he filed the present complaint. According to the workman, the backwages payable and his salary has not been fixed in accordance with the settlements which were in operation during the period that he was out of service i.e. the settlements dated 1.10.1997, 10.10.2001 and 1.10.2004. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioner to pay the benefits of the settlements within a period of one month of the order. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the settlements cannot now be W.P. No.598 OF 2010 : 2 : revived by the workman as he had refused to sign any undertakings. This submission cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the workman was not in employment when the three settlements were signed. Therefore he had no opportunity to consider whether he should sign them. Although the workman was willing to sign the settlement of 2004 after he was reinstated, the petitioner wanted him to sign an undertaking to the effect that he was foregoing the arrears of backwages. The Industrial Court has rightly concluded that he would be entitled to the benefits of all the settlements. In any event, the settlement of 1.10.2004 is still in operation and, therefore, the benefits of that settlement must be extended to the respondent workman as he has been reinstated in service. The petitioner has filed a revision application before the Industrial Court challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 14.12.2004. However, there is no stay granted by the Industrial Court, in the revision application, to the payment of backwages. 4. In my opinion, the order of the Industrial Court is not perverse and must be complied. The respondent workman shall be extended the benefits of settlement of 1.10.2004 immediately. As regards the arrears payable under the settlements of 1.10.1997 and 10.10.2001 which have been awarded by the Industrial Court they will be subject to the result in the revision application which is pending before the Industrial Court. 5. The petition is rejected. 6. The Industrial Court shall dispose of the revision application No.48 of 2005 which has been pending since 2005 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months from today.