ORDER : A.P. Ravani, J. Rule. Mr. K.V. Gadhia waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. The respondent workman was serving as Welder-coolie in the Engineering Department of the petitioner company. According to the respondent workman, he was discharged from service w.e.f. July 23, 1984. After following the requisite procedure, he raised industrial dispute as required under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946 (for short ‘B.I.R. Act'). The Labour Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent workman was a 'badli' worker working in the Engineering Department of the petitioner Company. On over- all appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court directed that the respondent workman be reinstated in service as 'badli' worker in the Engineering Department of the petitioner Company and he be paid the amount of back wages which the respondent workman would have earned had his name been retained in the list of 'badli' workers. The Labour Court has passed the order accordingly on June 7, 1988. 3. The petitioner Company felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court and preferred appeal before the Industrial Court under the relevant provisions of B.I.R. Act. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner Company, the Appellate Court took into consideration the contention raised by the respondent workman that he was a regular employee of the petitioner Company and not a 'badli' worker. Be it noted that the respondent workman had not filed any appeal against the decision of the Labour Court. In the appeal filed by the petitioner Company, the aforesaid contention raised by the respondent workman was taken into consideration by the Industrial Court and while rejecting the appeal, the Industrial Court directed that the respondent workman was working as Welder -coolie in the Mechanical Section of the petitioner Company and gave declaration to that effect. It is this order passed by the Industrial Court on July 21, 1990 which is under challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner Company. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, reported in 1986 II CLR 146 the respondent workman being a badli worker would not have any right to claim employment. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, reported in 1986 II CLR 146 the respondent workman being a badli worker would not have any right to claim employment. Reliance is placed on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Para 15 and 16 of the reported judgment. It is inter alia observed by the Supreme Court that the badli worker is not entitled to claim compensation on account of closure of the Mill Company. Right to claim compensation on account of closure of Mill Company is altogether a different thing. A badli worker may not have any right on account of the closure of the undertaking. But that does not mean that a badli worker has no right to claim his reinstatement meaning thereby reinsertion of his name in the list of badli workers, if his name has been deleted from the list of badli workers unlawfully. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case and it does not help the petitioner Company. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an appeal filed by the petitioner Company, the Industrial Court could not have varied the decision of the Labour Court to the further detriment of the appellant. The Industrial Court either could have allowed the appeal or at the most could have dismissed the appeal con- firming the order passed by the Labour Court. But it could not have modified the order passed by the Labour Court to the further detriment of the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded the aforesaid position. He has also submitted that the further declaration made by the appellate forum with regard to the status of the workman may be deleted. In the instant case the respondent workman had not filed appeal against the decision of the Labour Court. Therefore, it is obvious that the respondent workman was satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court. In the instant case the respondent workman had not filed appeal against the decision of the Labour Court. Therefore, it is obvious that the respondent workman was satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent workman, the declaration made by the Appellate Court with regard to the status of the workman is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner Company is confirmed. However, the following declaration given by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside. (Gujarati script is not printed) True translation of the Gujarati paragraph "At the time of termination the concerned workman Shri Jitendra Hirabhai was working as a Welder-coolie in Mechanic Section. Upto that extent it is modified and the Order of the Learned Judge is just and proper and hence confirmed. The petitioner Company is ordered to comply with the direction given by the Labour Court as regards the reinstatement of the workman and payment of back wages latest by January 31, 1991. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.