Point of Law: Labour Law - Reinstatement - Whenever employer offers to reinstate the workman at any stage of dispute or proceedings and if the workman does not accept offer even without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he will not be entitled to continue his claim for reinstatement in proceedings and he will also be not entitled to claim any back-wages from date of such offer, conditional or unconditional

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

The order passed by learned Single Judge on 09/02/2012 in Writ Petition No.376/2012 dismissing the said writ petition preferred by the appellant is the subject matter of challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present proceedings as can be gathered from the averments of the respective parties are as under :

It is the case of the appellant-complainant that he was working on the establishment that was being run by the respondent No.1-employer as a machine operator since 1994. He was getting wages of Rs.53/- per day and had completed continuous service of 240 days in each calender year. On 30/08/1998 when the complainant reported for duty he was informed that his services were not required and that another person had been appointed in his place. The complainant therefore on 09/09/1998 and 14/09/1998 issued notices to the employer to reinstate him on his original post with continuity in service. Despite receiving these notices there was no reply to the same. Thus according to the complainant by failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947) the employer had committed an unfair labour practice. It was also pleaded that juniors to the complainant were retained in service. He also pleaded that the employer instead of complying with the two notices issued by him raised various pleas by its letter dated 15/09/1998 that the complainant was remaining absent from duty. On the aforesaid premise, the complainant on 15/10/1998 filed the complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971).

Along with the complaint an application seeking grant of interim relief under provisions of Section 30(2) of the Act of 1971 was also filed. In reply thereto the employer took the stand that on 23/07/1998, 04/08/1998 and 15/09/1998 notices were issued to the complainant in view of his continuous absence from duty from 17/07/1998. It was denied that services of the complainant were terminated.

Pursuant to the order passed below Exhibit-30 on 21/01/2006 the employer filed its written statement at Exhibit-33. It was not disputed therein that the complainant was a regular worker having completed 240 days of continuous service. It was denied that the services of the complainant were terminated without any notice from 30/08/1998. It was reiterated that it was the complainant who was remaining absent from duty despite being served with various notices by the employer. It was specifically pleaded that if the complainant was desirous of discharging duty he ought to have prosecuted his application for interim relief which was not done. He ought to have prayed for directions to the Court to resume duties. It was thus prayed that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant examined himself below Exhibit-12 and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint. In his cross-examination he denied that on 11/08/1998 he had picked up a quarrel with the Manager and had left the premises. He denied service of the show cause notice dated 21/08/1998 or that from that date he was absent from duties. He admitted receipt of the letter dated 15/09/1998 issued by the employer. He asserted that after filing the complaint he had approached the employer to join duties and denied the suggestion that he never approached the employer for joining duties after filing the complaint. The complainant examined another witness Damodar Kadu in support of his case. This witness was working as a Chowkidar with the employer till 1999 and he stated that the employer had not permitted the complainant to join his duties. It was the employer who had ordered him not to allow the complainant to enter the premises. This witness was cross-examined by the employer. The employer did not lead any e