Popat Rambhau Dandawate vs General Manager & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 2750 Bom

                                         1                    WP No. 5640/1995

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                         
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.5640 OF 1995




                                                 
      Popat s/o Rambhau Dandvate
      Age: 46 Yrs., occu. Service,
      r/o Opp.Prabhat Bakery, Savedi,




                                                
      At post  Tq. And Dist.Ahmednagar            =        PETITIONER

               VERSUS

      1)       The General Manager,




                                      
               District Industries Centre,
               Opp. M.S.e.B.Office,
                             
               At post Tq. And Dist.
               Ahmedanagar.

      2)       The State of Maharashtra.
                            
      3)       Judge, Labour Court,
               Ahmednagar.                        =        RESPONDENTS 
                                   -----
      

      Mr.CV Dharurkar, AGP for Respondent No.2.
                              -----
   



                                   CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

10 th

June,2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) None has appeared for the petitioner

even on second call.

2) By filing the present petition, the

petitioner has questioned the Award passed by the

Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No.

46 of 1985. The services of the petitioner were

terminated w.e.f. 15.9.1982 by Respondent No.1.

The petitioner had, therefore, raised an

industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which

was forwarded by the Labour Commissioner for

adjudication to the Labour Court, Ahmednagar.

The learned Labour Court, after having assessed

the oral and documentary evidence brought on

record before it, had partly allowed the said

Reference. The petitioner was directed to be

reinstated as a fresh employee. The petitioner

has challenged the said order by filing the

present petition. It is the contention of the

petitioner in the present petition that the

learned Labour Court, while deciding the

aforesaid Reference has erred in not allowing the

back wages to the petitioner as well as

continuity in service. According to the

petitioner, no proper procedure was followed

while terminating the services of the petitioner

and the petitioner was terminated on some wrong

reasons.

3) After having carefully gone through the

judgment passed by the Labour Court, I do not

however find any substance in the objection

raised by the petitioner. The learned Labour

Court has held the termination illegal. But

considering the fact and circumstances of the

case, did refuse to accept the prayers of the

employee seeking back wages and continuity in

service and reinstatement was directed as a fresh

employee. The learned Labour Court has observed

that the petitioner had remained absent from the

duties for a considerable long period. It is

further observed that the petitioner did not take

any action for a period of about two years after

his alleged termination. It is further observed

that the explanation given by the petitioner for

his long absence was also unacceptable and

recording all these facts, the learned Labour

Court had refused the relief of back wages and

continuity of service to the petitioner. However,

for non-observance of the proper procedure in

terminating the services of the petitioner, the

learned Labour Court did direct reinstatement of

the employee. I do not find any error in the

judgment and award passed by the learned Labour

Court. No case is made out in the present

petition so as to cause interference in the

impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of

any substance and deserves to be dismissed and is

accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.

sd/-

(P.R.BORA,J.)

bdv/