Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE matter comes up on second stay petition filed by the petitioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara. However, in view of rejection of first stay petition by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner - Municipal Council, Bhilwara does not press this second stay petition. Therefore, the writ petition itself was taken up for final hearing at the joint request of the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner -Employer, Municipal Council, Bhilwara has filed present writ petition against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 18.11.2002 in Industrial Dispute Case No.9/1999 (Gopal Lal S/o Sh. Ramchandra Luhar v. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara), by which the learned Tribunal finding that termination of the workman was illegal as he has completed more than 240 days; and the termination without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1947'), was illegal termination, and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal by the impugned award dated 18.11.2002 directed that the workman may be reinstated back in service, however, he shall not be entitled to any back wages. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent -workman, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, submitted that the respondent -workman is ready to waive and forgo his claim of back - wages till today, even during the pendency of this writ petition of employer after the date of award dated 18.11.2002 also, provided the petitioner -employer (Municipal Council, Bhilwara) provides him the relief of reinstatement back in service in terms of impugned award.
(3.) THIS prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent - workman has not been seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner -Employer, Municipal Council, Bhilwara; and so also, even otherwise also, this Court finds that in view of first stay petition having been rejected by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2005, the petitioner -Employer ought to have complied with the said award of the Industrial Tribunal and ought to have reinstated the respondent -workman by now.;