JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Kolhapur, both are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in revision application on 17th June, 1994 under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The present petitioners were the revision applicants before the Industrial Court challenging the judgment and order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement without backwages and continuity of service to the concerned respondent employee who had filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act read with Item 1 of Schedule IV in which the Labour Court had passed the order as aforesaid.

2. It appears from the facts narrated in the record that the concerned employee, the respondent No. 1, was appointed on and from 10th December, 1981 as a typist-cum-clerk. It is an admitted position that he continued in employment with several breaks till 23rd April, 1984 when he was finally terminated from employment. It appears that first he approached the Industrial Court by his complaint on 28th July, 1984. It further appears that by its judgment and order dated 30th July, 1986, the Industrial Court dismissed the said complaint as not maintainable on the ground that he ought to have approached the Labour Court for reinstatement and not Industrial Court as he was challenging the order of his termination from employment. The said employee thereafter, filed the present complaint in question of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court on 28th August, 1986. He complained before the Labour Court that his services were terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further he also complained that the order of termination was illegal, improper and mala fide. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the labour Court answered the complaint partly in favour of the employee directing the petitioners to reinstate the employee with continuity of service but without backwages by its decision given on 7th May, 1999.

3. Both the parties were aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the labour Court and, therefore, both the parties approached the Industrial Court under section 44 of the Act by filing the revision applications. The petitioners challenged the order of reinstatement while the employee challenged the order denying him the relief of backwages. By its order dated 17th June, 1994, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order of reinstatement. The Industrial Court, however, allowed the revision application filed by the employee and granted him full backwages for the intervening period which were denied by the Labour Court.

4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said order and, therefore, they have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgments and orders of the Industrial Court, confirming the order of reinstatement and granting full backwages to the respondent employee. At the time of hearing of the petition, this Court (D.R. Dhanuka, J.) had directed the petitioners to obey the order of reinstatement. It appears that the petitioners have thereafter in the month of March 1995 reinstated the respondent employee. The order of the Industrial Court was stayed to the extent of backwages on 9th June, 1995.

5. The employee had approached the Labour Court challenging the order of termination, inter alia on the ground of violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He had taken a specific plea to that effect in his complaint. The petitioners in the written statement, however, pleaded that no notice of termination of service was required and that he was not entitled to the wages in lieu of the notice and that since the employee was not recruited in accordance with the recruitment rules, he could not be continued and that the em

Click Here to Read the rest of this document