1. By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging judgment and order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-2(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Application (IDA) No. 34/1995. By the said judgment and order dated 26th May, 1997, the Labour Court was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that there was a dispute about the status of the workman and therefore, the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute and as such there was no existing right in favour of the workman. The said application, therefore, was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition in this Court. Brief facts are as under :-

2. Petitioner Motiram Lorya Patil hereinafter referred to as the workman or an employee and the respondent Tata Electric Companies Transmission Division hereinafter referred to as the employer. It is the case of the workman that he was employed by his employer as a Cleaner-cum-Conductor and he was working in the said company since 1964. His services, however, terminated on 12.8.73. According to the workman, he was employed as a Mazdoor and he was given artificial breaks and his services were terminated from time to time in order to ensure that he does not become permanent though he was working continuously from 21.6.64. The respondent no.1 is engaged in the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the city of Greater Bombay. After the services of the workman were terminated on 12.8.73, he made an application for redressal of his grievance under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and his demand was referred to the Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court, Thane, by Reference (IDA) No.859/1976. This reference was allowed by the Labour Court by Award dated 9th July, 1984 directing the company to reinstate the petitioner workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Against the said order, the petitioner workman filed writ petition vide Writ Petition No.740/1985 which was partly allowed and the following order was passed :-

The petitioner shall be entitled to full back-wages from 12th August, 1973 to the date of his reinstatement minus a sum of Rs. 33,600/- which he had earned while in the service of M/s. Carvatex Pvt. Ltd.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

The first respondent shall pay the costs of this writ petition quantified at Rs.500/-

3. It is the case of the workman that in spite of the order passed by this court, he was not reinstated by the respondent company though repeated requests were made by him from time to time. There was some correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent company regarding reinstatement. The grievance of the petitioner workman was that pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court, it was the duty of the company to reinstate him as permanent employee and not as a temporary employee and secondly, it was alleged that the company ought to have reinstated him in the post of Cleaner-cum-Conductor and not as a Mazdoor. His grievance was that he should have been reinstated at Kalyan and not at Bhivpuri which was the offer given by the respondent company in reinstating him. The petitioner workman thereafter filed a recovery application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was numbered as Application (IDA) No.34/1995 and this application, however, was rejected by the Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 26.5.97. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this petition in this Court. While granting Rule, this Court was pleased to pass the following Order :-

Rule:

Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 states that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondent no.1 are ready to allow the petitioner to join in the post of Cleaner at their Kalyan Division o