( 1 ) BOTH these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner in Writ Petition no. 2354 of 2005 joined services of the respondent as a clerk-cum-Salesgirl in the furniture Department on 29/09/1981. She was a member of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha which is a recognized Union, functioning for the respondent's Establishment. The Petitioner in writ Petition No. 1996 of 2005 joined the services of the Respondent as a peon in the silk Centre of the Khadi Bhavan on 15/04/1982 and he was also an active member of the mumbai Mazdoor Sabha. The Respondent is an institution registered under the Societies registration Act, 1960 and under the Bombay public Trusts Act, 1950 and has employed about 400 workmen in its various establishments in mumba.

( 3 ) BOTH these Petitioners were issued memo in May, 1989 in which certain allegations of misconduct were made. Both of them gave reply to the said show cause memo, denying and disputing the allegations which were made in the said memo. Both the Petitioners and 13 others were issued charge-sheet for the same or similar misconduct which was allegedly committed by them in respect of the incident which had taken place on 15/04/1989.

( 4 ) A joint inquiry of the Petitioners and two others commenced on 12/06/1080 and this inquiry was concluded on 13/06/1992. The inquiry Officer submitted his report alongwith his findings and on the basis of the inquiry report, services of the Petitioner Parshuram matkar were terminated on 07/08/1993 and that of Ms. Vidya Kulkarni were terminated on 10/08/1993.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent did not file any application for approval under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial disputes Act. Both the Petitioners, therefore, filed a complaint in pending Reference (IT) no. 124 of 19988 being complaint (IT) No. 6 of 1993 and Complaint (IT) No. 5 of 1993 under section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act. In both these complaints, written statement was filed by the Respondent. The Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 23/04/2003 decided both the complaints holding that the termination of services of the Petitioners was in contravention of section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act and further held that the said action on the part of the Respondent was not justified and amounted to unfair labour practice. The Tribunal, however, instead of granting reinstatement, directed the Respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- in the case of Parshuram Matkar and Rs. 2,16,800/- in the case of Vidya Kulkarni towards damages for the unjustified termination of the Petitioners' services. The Respondent challenged the orders passed in the aforesaid complaints by filing Writ petition Nos. 86 and 87 of 2004 in this Court. Both these Writ Petitions were rejected by order dated 17/02/2004 and liberty was granted to the Petitioners to pursue the remedy for enhancement of compensation. SLP filed by the respondent in the Supreme Court was rejected by order dated 11/11/2005.

( 6 ) BOTH the Petitioners filed the aforesaid Petitions challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 23/04/2003. In both these Petitions, Petitioners have prayed that this Court may issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service with full back wages and continuity of service along with all consequential benefits.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the tribunal had erred in awarding compensation to the petitioners instead of passing an order of reinstatement with full back wages. He submitted that having held that mandatory provisions of section 33 (2) (b) had not been complied with, the Tribunal erred in thereafter only granting compensation to the Petitioners. He submitted that the case of the Petitioners was squarely covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document