S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 26.2.1999, copy Annexure P -4, vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof and 50% back wages from the date of the reference i.e. 11.5.1994 till the date of his reinstatement.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has drawn my attention to various dates. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 7.10.1985 as a Watchman. His services were terminated on 28.7.1986. He raised an Industrial dispute by way of demand notice dated 21.10.1989. The Government vide its order dated 29.11.1991, copy Annexure P -1, rejected the reference. The reasons given for rejection are as under : - "Your aforementioned request letter was examined and after going through it and the same being devoid of any merits, the Government does not consider it fit to bring any change in its earlier order." There is another order dated 4.8.1992. Counsel for the petitioner states that it is an order in appeal. Copy of the same is Annexure P -2. The request for making a reference was again rejected vide said order. The reasons given in the same are as under : - "Your aforementioned request letter was examined and after going through it and the same being devoid of any merits, the Govt. does not consider it fit to bring any change in its earlier order." The review application against the same was also dismissed. The respondent filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 10953 of 1992 challenging the order of the Govt. It was dismissed on 25.8.1992. Copy of the judgment of the Division Bench dismissing the writ petition is produced at Annexure P -3. Thereafter the Government on 11.5.1994 on the same demand notice decided to refer the matter to the Labour Court.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argued that once the matter was decided by this Court in a writ petition, it cannot be opened again. So far as this point is concerned, it may be stated that this Court in the earlier writ petition has not given any direction except dismissing the writ petition holding that the reasons given by the Government for not making a reference cannot be said to be capricious or arbitrary. The reasons given by the Division Bench can be reproduced as under : - "As can be seen from the order, the Government was of the view that as the petitioner had raised the dispute after more than three years from the date of which his services were terminated there was no reason to make a reference. In our opinion, the reason given by the Government for the making a reference cannot be said to be capricious or arbitrary. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed." Counsel for the respondent argued that the reference can be made subsequently on the same demand notice. He has also raised some preliminary objections that the writ petition is signed by the Secretary of the petitioner and therefore, it is not maintainable. He has also argued that the order of reference made by the Government is not challenged in the writ petition.;