Bombay High Court
Rameshchandra Jha vs Shree Gajanan Printing Press on 22 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:36100
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4969 OF 2004
Rameshchandra Jha
R/o. Sai Krupa Chawl Committee, Kaji Pada, Petitioner (Orig.
Kandivli (East), Mumbai 400 101. .. Complainant)
Versus
Shree Gajanan Printing Press,
4th Laboratory Road, Behind Chabildas High
School, Dadar, Mumbai 400 028. .. Respondent
....................
Ms. A.R.S. Baxi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Gujar a/w. T.R. Yadav, Advocates i/by Mr. C.R. Naidu &
Co. for Respondent.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 22, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Baxi, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.
Gujar, learned Advocate for Respondent.
2. Petitioner is the Complainant before the Industrial Court.
Complaint (ULP) No.1113 of 1993 filed by the Petitioner is dismissed
vide judgment dated 07.06.2003. Present Petition challenges the said
judgment under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. There is a checkered history which needs to be narrated
before I advert to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates
for the parties. Petitioner joined the services of Respondent as a
1 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
Compositor and worked for about 8 years until 01.12.1979. He alleged
that his services were terminated however before the Conciliation
Officer Respondent denied the allegation of termination and stated
that he was not reporting for duty and he be directed to resume his
duties. Since Petitioner failed to resume his duties, Conciliation Officer
filed a report. Order of Reference under Section 10(1)(c) read Section
12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the said Act") was
made to the 4th Labour Court, Mumbai for adjudication of dispute.
Reference was numbered as Reference (IDA) No.436 of 1982
Petitioner claimed entitlement to reinstatement with full backwages
and continuity of service w.e.f. 01.07.1979. Award was passed ex
parte on 04.08.1982, but the same was recalled on Application of
Respondent. Respondent filed written statement dated 30.06.1983
contending that services of Petitioner were never terminated and he
was not reporting for duty as he was gainfully employed elsewhere.
4. On 27.12.1985, Award was passed directing reinstatement of
Petitioner with effect from 01.12.1979 with 50% backwages alongwith
cost of Rs.50/-. In March 1986, Respondent called upon Petitioner to
report for duty. On 23.09.1986, Petitioner filed Application (IDA)
No.275 of 1986 under Section 33C(2) of the said Act claiming
backwages for the period 01.12.1979 to 28.02.1986. On 20.07.1987,
order was passed in Application (IDA) No.275 of 1986 computing
backwages of Rs.15,987.50 for the aforesaid period. On 05.12.1988,
2 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
Respondent paid to the Petitioner amount of Rs.16,000/- vide 2
cheques of Rs.8,000/- each and Petitioner was reinstated back in
service.
5. Petitioner thereafter worked with Respondent for one month
and stopped reporting for work. After a hiatus of 5 years, Petitioner
filed Application (IDA) No.681 of 1993 claiming further sum of
Rs.1,54,959.50 towards backwages for the period 01.03.1986 to
28.02.1993 on the basis of Award dated 27.12.1985. Simultaneously
Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.1113 of 1993 under Item 9 of
Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, 1971 (for short 'MRTU and
PULP Act') alleging failure on the part of Respondent in implementing
the Award dated 27.12.1985 alongwith Application for interim relief.
6. In the said Complaint, Respondent filed Affidavit-in-Reply
stating that Petitioner had resumed duty on 28.02.1986, worked for 2 -
3 months and thereafter remained absent on the ground of illness.
Petitioner did not disclose about having filed Application (IDA) No.681
of 1993 under Section 33C(2) of said Act which was pending before
the 1st Labour Court, Mumbai in the present Complaint.
7. On 08.12.1993, interim order was passed in Complaint
(ULP) No.1113 of 1993. On the basis of averments made in Affidavit-
in-Reply by Respondent directing the Petitioner to report for duty
3 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
without prejudice to his rights and contentions, Petitioner reported for
duty with Respondent for one month and thereafter once again
remained absent.
8. In the year 1994, Petitioner filed fresh Complaint (ULP)
No.289 of 1994 before the Labour / Industrial Court, Mumbai under
Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP
Act alleging oral termination with effect from 11.06.1994. On
17.08.1998, 1st Labour Court, Mumbai dismissed Application (IDA)
No.681 of 1993 holding that Petitioner did not resume duty after
passing of Award dated 27.12.1985 and since claim for backwages was
the subject matter of Complaint (ULP) No.1113 of 1993 pending
before the Industrial Court, the same could not be decided by the
Labour / Industrial Court. Petitioner did not challenge this order and
the same attained finality. On 25.05.2005, 8th Labour Court, Mumbai
rejected Complaint (ULP) No.289 of 1994 clearly holding that
Petitioner was reinstated after passing of Award dated 27.12.1985 but
he remained absent and hence Respondent was not guilty of practicing
any unfair labour practice. Dismissal of this Complaint has been
suppressed in the present Writ Petition.
9. Petitioner challenged the order dated 25.05.2005 in this
Court in Writ Petition No.8877 of 2005. On 25.04.2006, Writ Petition
was dismissed on the ground that alternate remedy of Appeal was
4 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
available to Petitioner. Petitioner did not challenge the order of the
Labour / Industrial Court thereafter. As such order dated 25.05.2005
passed in Complaint (ULP) No.289 of 1994 attained finality. On
07.06.2003, present Complaint (ULP) No.1113 of 1993 was dismissed
by Industrial Court holding that the amount of backwages awarded by
Trial Court were already paid by Respondent to Petitioner by two
cheques of Rs.8,000/- each, that Petitioner was reinstated thereafter,
but after receiving the payment, he did not report for duty
subsequently, that apart from the bare allegations and words of
Petitioner there was nothing produced on record by him either in his
oral evidence or by documentary evidence neither Respondent's
witness was cross examined by Petitioner and finally concluded that
Respondent had duly complied with the Award dated 27.12.1985
passed by the concerned Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.436 of
1980 and therefore rejected the Complaint (ULP) No.1113 of 1993
filed by Petitioner.
10. Hence the present Writ Petition.
11. Ms. Baxi, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner would
submit that though Award in (IDA) No.436 of 1980 was passed on
27.12.1985 it was implemented only in the year 1993 but backwages
were paid upto 28.02.1986. She would submit that the said act of
Respondent depriving Petitioner of backwages from the year 1986 to
5 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
08.12.1993 until he joined duty amounts to non compliance of the
Award i.e. back wages upto reinstatement.
11.1. She would submit that case of Respondent that backwages
were paid towards full and final settlement of the Award and
Petitioner was reinstated is incorrect. According to her Petitioner was
reinstated in service on 08.12.1993 and once again removed on
11.06.1994.
11.2. She would submit that Industrial Court has held that there is
no evidence to show that Petitioner approached for reinstatement but
failed to consider that Respondent did not take any action in calling
the Petitioner and offering him reinstatement.
11.3. She would submit that Respondent has not taken the stand
of abandonment of service in its Written Statement but now they are
arguing the same with a view to deprive monetary benefits to
Petitioner. She would submit that Application (IDA) No.681 of 1993
filed under Section 33C of the said Act was dismissed on the ground
that Petitioner was reinstated on 08.12.1993. She would further
submit that Complaint (ULP) No.289 of 1994 was filed by Petitioner
for continuity of service and full backwages. She would fairly submit
the same was dismissed and challenge thereto was also dismissed by
this Court. She would however submit that present Complaint (ULP)
No.1113 of 1993 challenges non-compliance of Award dated
6 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
22.12.1985 in IDA No.436 of 1980. In view of her aforesaid
submissions, she would submit that the impugned order be quashed
and set aside and present Writ Petition be allowed.
12. PER CONTRA, Mr. Gujar, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent has taken me through the timeline in the present case and
would submit that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Auto
General Vs. Engineering Workers' Union1 the act of reinstatement in
terms of Award has to be performed only once. He would submit that
once it is performed by the employer, the question of repeating such an
act in terms of the Award which has already been enforced cannot
arise. He would submit that there is no question of non-compliance of
Award dated 27.12.1985 so as to constitute unfair labour practice on
the part of employer in the facts of the present case. He would submit
that Petitioner has received backwages under the Award of Rs.16,000/-
which he has not denied. This amount was computed by the Court
itself and directed to be paid over to Petitioner. Court has also taken
cognizance of the same. He would submit that Petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands. He is guilty of suppressio veri
and suprresio falsi in not disclosing the true facts of receiving
backwages and his reinstatement. He has not executed the Award
dated 27.12.1985 but after a hiatus of seven years filed (ULP)
Complaint on false grounds for implementation of Award and
1 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 428
7 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
reinstatement. Hence the Complaint itself is not-maintainable. He
would therefore argue to dismiss the Petition.
13. I have heard Ms. Baxi, learned Advocate for Petitioner and
Mr. Gujar, learned Advocate for Respondent and perused the record of
the case. Submissions made by both the learned Advocates have
received due consideration of this Court.
14. At the outset, it needs to be prima facie reiterated that there
is a categorical finding returned by learned Labour / Industrial Court
in the impugned order dated 07.06.2003 rejecting Complaint IDA in
paragraph No.12 which can be seen on page Nos.69 and 70 of the
Petition. This finding records that it cannot be disputed that amount
of 50% backwages which have been awarded by Trial Court in the said
Reference (436 of 1982) which is already paid by Respondent by two
cheques of Rs.8,000/- each. This is a very critical and crucial finding
because it goes to the root of the matter. It infact goes to the extent of
deciphering the right of Petitioner to file the present IDA Complaint
No.1113 of 1993 seeking backwages and reinstatement with effect
from 01.12.1979. It is seen that all this and the intervening events and
orders passed by the Labour / Industrial Court have been suppressed
by the Petitioner.
15. Further there is no denial of these facts neither in the present
IDA Complaint No.1113 of 1993 nor any question is asked by
8 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
Petitioner to the witnesses of Respondent in that regard so as to
maintain his case for entitlement of backwages from the year 1979
onwards. An intriguing question that therefore arises before Court is as
to why did Petitioner remain silent for 7 years if he claimed that IDA
Award dated 27.12.1985 was passed by Labour / Industrial Court in
Reference (IDA) No.436 of 1980. Petitioner's alleged silence is due to
suppression of material facts. Petitioner did not choose to execute the
said Award until the year 1993 when he filed the present Complaint
for the same cause of action seeking backwages and reinstatement
from the year 1979 onwards. However there is substantial
documentary evidence placed on record by Respondent in the form of
Award dated 27.12.1985 appended below Exhibit 'B' at page No.23 of
the Petition, order dated 20.07.1987 passed in Application (IDA)
No.275 of 1986 (filed by Petitioner himself) computing the backwages
at Rs.15,987.50 for the period 01.12.1979 to 23.09.1986 appended
below Exhibit 'C' at page No.30 of the Petition, a categorical finding
being recorded in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the impugned judgment
dated 07.06.2003 of Petitioner having been paid amount of
Rs.16,000/- by way of two cheques of Rs.8,000/- each as far back as
on 05.12.1988 all of which cannot be disregarded. Such incriminating
material has led to dismissal of Complaint of Petitioner. Therefore on
the face of record Petitioner has approached the Labour / Industrial
Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.1113 of 1993 on admittedly false
9 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
grounds. Petitioner has not approached the Labour / Industrial Court
with clean hands. Petitioner has materially suppressed receipt of
backwages and has surreptitiously claimed backwages from the year
1979 and non implementation of the Award dated 27.12.1985. There
was no reason for Petitioner to wait from the year 1985 onwards for
seeking execution of the said Award by filing a fresh complaint when
admittedly after computation by the Labour / Industrial Court in his
own Application Complaint (ULP) No.276 of 1986, the amount of
backwages were computed by Court, he was directed to be reinstated,
he joined the services of Respondent, he was duly paid Rs.16,000/- by
two cheques of Rs.8,000/- each and after working for 1 month he
stopped attending work with Respondent. Hence Petitioner's case in so
far as seeking backwages from the year 1979 is concerned, admittedly
fails and he is not entitled to the same since in the present Complaint
before the learned Labour / Industrial Court he has claimed backwages
upto the year 1993. For that reason what is crucial are two things.
Firstly the fact that Petitioner was called upon to resume duty in March
1986 after passing of the Award dated 27.12.1985 on the basis of the
written statement filed by Respondent dated 30.06.1993 and secondly
there was no termination whatsoever by Respondent of the Petitioner's
services as he was not reporting for duty and was gainfully employed
elsewhere which once again militates against the case of Petitioner. It
is prima facie seen that if such are the facts and Petitioner is not
10 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
continued in services of Respondent, Petitioner's claim for backwages
on the ground of his alleged termination of services is false. It is prima
facie seen from the record that Petitioner resumed duty with
Respondent on 28.12.1986, worked for 2 to 3 months and thereafter
once again remained absent on the ground of illness and did not return
for work. Stand of Respondent in pleadings right from inception
regarding never having terminated Petitioner's services from the year
1979 onwards has been consistent. In evidence also the said stand is
consistent. There is no denial of the same neither witness of
Respondent is cross-examined by Petitioner on that issue.
16. It is also seen that Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.681
of 1993 seeking backwages for the period from 01.03.1986 to
28.02.1993 on the basis of Award dated 27.12.1985. Such an
Application was on the face of record not maintainable at all. The said
Application was subsequently dismissed. Petitioner did not challenge
the same further. However, Petitioner could not have claimed
backwages or even reinstatement since admittedly it was the case of
Respondent all throughout that his services were never terminated and
it is Petitioner who resumed duty intermittently and after working for
1 to 3 months stopped attending work and after a few years
approached the Labour / Industrial Court by filing back to back
Applications seeking backwages.
11 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
17. The Petitioner has suppressed filing of Complaint (ULP)
Nos.275 of 1986 and 681 of 1993 from the Labour / Industrial Court
when the present Complaint (ULP) No.1113 of 1993 was filed. Even in
the present Petition, Petitioner has not referred to the said
proceedings. It is thus prima facie seen that Petitioner's case that he
was reinstated and his services were terminated after reinstatement is
not the correct picture portrayed by him.
18. Hence on an overall consideration of the material available
on record and consideration of the same by the learned Labour /
Industrial Court the judgment dated 07.06.2003 cannot be faulted
with. The findings returned by the learned Labour / Industrial Court
from paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of the judgment dated 07.06.2003 are
well reasoned and cogent findings based on the facts and
circumstances of the present case which are alluded to hereinabove.
19. Petitioner has taken undue advantage of the fact situation
that despite he being reinstated, he having joined, he having received
backwages under the orders of the Labour / Industrial Court , he has
once again approached the learned Labour / Industrial Court after 5
years for the same cause of action and on the same ground when
consistently it has been the case of Respondent that services of
Petitioner were never terminated in the first instance. This stand of
Respondent has been upheld and confirmed by the learned Labour /
12 of 13
1.WP.4969.2004.doc
Industrial Court in the impugned judgment dated 07.06.2003 on the
basis of specific documentary evidence which is in the form of the
orders passed by the Labour / Industrial Court in Applications filed by
the Petitioner himself.
20. In that view of the matter and the above observations and
findings, the judgment dated 07.06.2003 cannot be faulted with. The
said judgment dated 07.06.2003 is upheld and confirmed. Resultantly
Writ Petition fails.
21. Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.08.22
12:52:23 +0530
13 of 13
