wp768of98.sxw 1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.768 OF 1998 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. .. Petitioner -versus Ravindra Y Baing and anr .. Respondent. Smt Suvedita J. Shah, for the Petitioner None for respondent. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 19th April, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged order of reinstatement dated 5.9.1997, passed by the Presiding Officer, in favour of the respondent worker and directed to reinstate him as casual labourer, by setting aside the order of termination dated 13.11.1986. However, no back wages were granted. This Court while admitting the petition on 13.4.1998, granted stay of the order. In the result the respondent was not in service since then. Even otherwise considering the admitted position as recorded in the order that the respondent was a casual labourer and there was no appointment letter and recruitment was not as that of civil services and as there is nothing to show that he was paid monthly wages and/or was in a particular pay scale. The case of petitioner wp768of98.sxw 2 is that the respondent was minor at the time of appointment and he was employed by the Bombay Telephones. The petitioner is constituted on 1st April, 1986. 2. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent was appointed by the petitioner. He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange also. In view of above there is no reason now to consider the case of respondent based upon Industrial Dispute Act, as agitated and as ordered. Therefore, there is no question of granting any order of reinstatement as ordered. In the result, the petition is allowed, with liberty in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)