Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Secondary And Higher ... vs Mahendra M.Deokar And Anr on 18 July, 2016
WP 9598-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9598 OF 2004
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education Board & Anr. .. Petitioners
V/s
Mahendra M. Deokar & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant Chavan with Mr. Kiran Gandhi and Mr. Nirav Shah i/b
Little & Co. for the petitioners.
Mr. Nitin Kulkarni for respondent no.1.
CORAM: D.H. WAGHELA, CJ.
DATE : 18th JULY 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:
The Petitioners have approached this Court invoking
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of
certiorari so as to quash the judgment and order dated 14 th October
2004 of learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision
Application (ULP) No. 50 of 2004. That revision application had
arisen from the original complaint of the respondent workman which
Complaint No. 160 of 1996 was dismissed by the order dated 28 th
May 2004 of the 2nd Labour Court. In substance, the respondent
workman was appointed as Assistant Progrmmer by order dated 22nd
December 1994 on probation and for a period of one year. After
ABS 1 of 4
WP 9598-2004
completion of one year, a chargesheet was issued to him on 1 st
February 1996 and then his services were terminated on 16 th
February 1996. He was ordered to be reinstated with back wages
and continuity of service mainly on account of the fact that his
services were terminated without conducting a regular departmental
inquiry.
2. During the pendency of proceedings before this Court,
the operation of the impugned order was stayed on 3rd May 2006.
On the other hand, admittedly the respondent has not filed any
application for recovery of back wages or for any amount by way of
interim relief. Instead it is admitted by the respondent himself, who
is personally present in the Court, by giving instructions to his
learned counsel that he has been doing one or the other job and
earning different amounts at different times, even as his family was
maintained mainly on account of his wife being an employed person.
On the other hand, the respondent has been offered reinstatement
by the petitioners by a written order dated 1st August 2015.
3. Under the above circumstances, the only issue agitated
for disposal of the present petition was in respect of the amount of
back wages that the respondent should receive and as to when he
should report from duty at which office for continuing his service on
the original post without claiming any other benefits except
continuity of service.
ABS 2 of 4
WP 9598-2004
4. Learned counsel for the respondent having had the
opportunity to take necessary instructions in respect of all the
matters, he has submitted on instructions that the Court may fix any
amount as back wages, in lumpsum or otherwise, which the
petitioners should pay within one month of reinstatement of the
respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that
the amount, which the Court may fix by way of back wages, shall be
paid without any further legal process by the petitioners to the
respondent within a period of two months from the date on which he
may be required to report for duty.
5. Accordingly, by consent and after considering the
relevant facts and submissions, it is directed that the respondent
shall report for duty at the Pune office of the petitioners to be
reinstated on his original post with continuity of service and without
back wages on 1st August 2016. Thereafter on or before 30 th
September 2016, the respondent shall be paid by petitioner no.1 the
lumpsum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of compensation and back
wages. It is agreed and understood that the respondent shall be
reinstated on the same post in the current scale of pay after counting
his seniority on the basis of continuity of service since the year 1996
and he shall be entitled to all the incidental benefits for the period
starting from his date of reinstatement. This will not be a precedent.
ABS 3 of 4
WP 9598-2004
6. Accordingly the petition stands disposed in the aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
ABS 4 of 4
