1 wp 1622.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2009 1. Rajendra Bandu Khaire and others .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri S. P. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners assail the order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in revision. 2. The petitioners were in employment of the erstwhile Municipal Council and their services were terminated. The same was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby the revision was filed before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court also dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 2 wp 1622.09 3. Shri N. L. Choudhari, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were permanent employees as they have completed 240 days in each year. As such, the petitioners could not have been terminated. It is a clear case of unfair labour practise, but the courts below have not considered this aspect. 4. This Court in Writ Petition No. 3469/2005 was considering matter in respect of similarly situated employees and this Court in the said writ petition vide judgment dated 19.01.2009 held that the orders impugned cannot be faulted with. In view of that and for the reasons stated in Writ Petition No. 3469/2005, the present writ petition is also dismissed. It is further clarified that as and when the Corporation decides to recruit fresh employees, weightage shall be given to the fact of the services being rendered by the petitioners and they be granted preference by relaxing the condition in respect of age if it is permissible in accordance with the recruitment rules. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11