This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the A ward passed by the Labour Court at Satara on 27/1/2005, thereby allowing Reference (IDA) No.1 of 1996 partly. The petitioner-department has been directed to reinstate the respondent workman on his previous post as labour on daily wages, with continuity of service w.e.f. 1/9/1985 but without any back wages.

2. At the threshold Mr. Topkar, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petition has been filed on 19/12/2006 against the Award dated 27/1/2005 i.e. almost after one year and II months and, therefore, it suffers from delays and laches.

3. In the petition memo itself it has been pointed out that after the impugned Award was published, the petitioner-department had approached the State Government seeking sanction to file Writ Petition and the sanction order was issued on 30/11/2006. Hence, in my considered opinion the delay, if any, caused in filing this petition deserves to be condoned and it cannot be said that petition requires to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

4. As per the respondent he was employed as a mazdoor (labour) from 10/2/1984 on daily wages at Urmodi Medium Project and he worked continuously till 31/81l985, however, he was terminated on 1/911985. He had approached the State Government and he was issued an order dated 2/7/1986 calling upon him to report for duty but when he went to report for duty, one officer by name Pawar avoided to take him on duty and thus he could not be reinstated. On 29/4/1992 he submitted a representation to the Superintendent Engineer and prayed for his reinstatement. As there \vas no response, he approached the Government Labour Officer at Satara on 12/811992 and during the discussion it was agreed to reinstate the workman but subsequently there was no order issued. Consequently, he issued an Advocate's notice on 28/1/1995 and approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 10/41 1995. The Assistant Commissioner submitted a failure report on 1/91/985 and thereafter his demand for reinstatement was referred to the Labour court for adjudication/Reference (IDA) No.1 of 1996].

He further submitted that from 2212/1984 to 31/811985 he had completed more than 240 days of work and, therefore, the termination of service amounted to retrenchment and as there was no notice or notice pay given, the department had committed breach of mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also submitted that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste and is a physically disabled person. He also claimed that other persons who were working with him in the year 1984-85 were retained and subsequently made permanent.

5. Written Statement was filed by the Executive Engineer. Minor Irrigation Department at Satma. It was admitted that from 10/211984 the workman was appointed as a daily wager under the Urmodi Medium Project and he was continued till 3J/811985 with breaks however, the Urmodi project could not take off and was subsequently closed and, therefore, from 1/91/985 the workman was not continued. It was further stated that on his representation he was issued a letter dated 217/1986 and called upon to Join the Urmodi Project at Mhaswad within 10 days. lnspite of the receipt of this letter he did not resume and, therefore, he was paid the legal dues on 2412/1987 (Rs.200.40 paise). The demand for reinstatement was opposed on the ground that there was no case of retrenchment as the Project was closed and no appointment order was ever issued to the workman.

6. The workman himself stepped in the witness box in support of his claim for reinstatement whereas Mr. Pandurang Shelar was examined on behalf of the Superintendent Engineer. The learned Judge of the Labour Court considered the evidence both oral as well as documentary, the arguments advanced by both the parties and held that the workman was illegally terminated from service and, therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement