The main legal point established is that similarly placed individuals should be treated equally under the law, and principles of equity, justice, and good conscience should be applied to determine compensation.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court, Akola in an unfair labour practice complaint and the order passed by the Industrial Court, Akola in revision confirming that order. In view of the notice for final disposal issued earlier, Rule is issued and made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner was appointed on 2nd April, 1984 as labourer (mazoor)/male coolie with Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra. His services were terminated along with 110 other employees, who were also similarly appointed as labourer (mazoor)/male coolie. By the date of this termination order, many of these appointees had completed more than 2 years of continuous service. In the petitioner’s case, he had completed more than 3 years of continuous service. The petitioner, in the premises, filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under Section 28 read with Item – I of Schedule – IV of the MRTU and PULP Act before the Labour Court at Akola being U. L. P. Complaint No.97/88. About 56 other employees, who were part of the group of 110 employees terminated on 30th April, 1987 and who were similarly placed as the petitioner herein, likewise filed a collective complaint through the Secretary of the Trade Union, being complaint ULP No.120/1987. While the petitioner’s complaint was pending before the Labour Court, on 30th September, 1992 the Labour Court allowed the collective complaint of 56 employees (ULP Complaint No.120/1987) and granted relief of reinstatement to the complainant employees. A revision preferred by the respondents herein challenging that order was rejected by the Industrial Court at Akola. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a Writ Petition before this Court. During the pendency of that Writ Petition, the respondents settled the matter with the complainants whose cases formed part of the subject matter of the Writ Petition. By way of such settlement, complainant employees were reinstated in service but without the benefit of back wages. In fact, as a result of this settlement, nearly 24 employees, who were junior to the petitioner, came to be reinstated. This reinstatement was preceded by a Government Resolution of 8th May, 2007 allowing reinstatement of the employees without back wages. It appears from the record of the case that the respondents were willing to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the same lines as 56 others referred to above. As in the case of those 56 employees, a suitable undertaking was called for from the petitioner that he was ready and willing to forgo back wages in case of his reinstatement. Despite this undertaking, it appears, nothing was done in the matter of the petitioner. All this while, the petitioner’s complaint was pending before the Labour Court at Akola. Finally, when the complaint was heard, the petitioner pointed out the intervening facts, some of which have been recounted above and prayed for reinstatement on the same lines as in the case of the others. The Labour Court, by its impugned order, rejected the petitioner’s complaint. The matter was carried in revision by the petitioner before the Industrial Court at Akola. By its impugned order dated 7th October, 2015, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision. Hence, the present petition.

4. There is no denying that the petitioner’s case is similar to that of 56 complainants, who had filed the collective complaint (Complaint ULP No.120/1987) in the matter of their termination by the same order as that of the petitioner. Their complaint was allowed by the Labour Court and the respondents’ revision there from was dismissed. The respondents finally accepted the verdict of reinstatement, though of course on an assurance by the complaining employees that they would forgo their claim of back wages granted by both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. All employees were thereupon reinstated. The petitioner similarly applied for reinstatement