JUDGMENT

Rohit B. Deo, J. (Oral) - Heard Shri Alok Upasni, the learned counsel for petitioner, Shri A.S. Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent 1 and Smt. S.V. Kolhe, the learned AGP for respondent 2.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent.

3. The petitioner employee, whose termination is held illegal by the Labour Court, which finding is confirmed by the Industrial Court, is invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the refusal of the relief of the reinstatement and back wages and grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000/in lieu thereof.

4. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the employee") instituted complaint 5 of 2003 invoking the provisions of section 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("Act) challenging his termination dated 9.7.2001.

5. The employee averred that he was appointed as a daily wage employee in the Public Works Department of respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the employer") in February 1997 and on 5.8.1997 was transferred to the Tree Conservation Department. The employee was issued appointment order da