1. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. What was before the labour Court was the dispute regarding respondent's termination from service which was effected by the petitioner in 2002.
2.1 The labour Court was required to decide as to whether the said termination was legally and sustainable or the respondent's case that the termination of his service is effected illegally without following any procedure prescribed by or known to law, was justified and correct.
3. The petitioner has claimed that during the pendency of the said reference proceedings the settlement was arrived at whereby the respondent was supposed to report for work but he did not report for work pursuant to the settlement in the office of the Asst. Labour Commissioner.
3.1 The only material of which reliance is placed to substantiate submission regarding so called settlement is a letter allegedly written by the petitioner to the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner. However, any other material to substantiate submission based on the ground of settlement is not available on record.
4. Furthermore, it prima facie appears that even if the submission on the ground of settlement said to have been arrived at during the pendency of the reference proceedings were to be believed and the further allegation of the petitioner that the workman did not report for work after such settlement were also to be believed, then also such development would, at the most, disentitle the respondent from benefit of backwages but would not be of any assistance in justifying or validating action of termination effected in 2002. If the said termination was contrary to law it would continue to be so, even if the petitioner's allegation that after the settlement the respondent did not report for work is true (and were to be believed).
5. Having being confronted with such position learned advocate for the petitioner has alternatively submitted that in the facts of such case and particularly in view of the fact that almost 10 years have passed since the dispute arose and it would not be possible for the petitioner to reinstate the respondent and on facts present case is a case wherein alternative direction instead of reinstatement deserves to be considered.
6. Such submission by the learned advocate for the petitioner presupposes that the respondent Corporation is in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, desirous to offer the alternative relief in lieu of reinstatement and for that purpose learned advocate for the petitioner has requested that if the respondent is present before this Court, the said aspect can be considered in presence of the workman. On such ground learned advocate for the petitioner requested that notice to the respondent may be issued.
7. Considering the said request and submission by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it was put to the Counsel of the petitioner that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- (non refundable / adjustable) towards the cost for the respondent (which would be in addition to the cost awarded by the labour Court) for inviting the workman to attend present proceedings for the aforesaid purpose, then the Court may issue notice to the respondent.
8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that if the Court passes such an order then the petitioner would comply the said order.
9. Hence on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost, the registry is directed to issue Notice to the respondent making it returnable on 17.2.2012.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top