1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 108/2006 (State of Maharashtra & 2 others VERSUS Hiralal Pandurang Bisen & 8 others) WITH Writ Petition No. 181/2006 ( State of Maharashtra & 2 others VERSUS Madhukar Atmaram Hejib & 9 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. S.S. Wandile, Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Pillai, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By these petitions, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara in a joint complaint filed by the respondents along with other employees declaring that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by not bringing the respondents on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment on completion of five years of their service with the petitioners. 2 Mrs. S.S. Wandile, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the Industrial Court, Bhandara committed a serious error in holding that the petitioners were required to bring the respondents on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment as they had worked for five years with the petitioners when there was no evidence on record to show that the respondents had worked for 240 days during those five consecutive years. In fact, according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the record shows that the respondents had not worked for 240 days during the five years of service. Shri Pillai, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Industrial Court, Bhandara had rightly considered the law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus M.V. Ghalge and another, which laid down that irrespective of number of days of actual work 3 rendered in each of the said five years, the employee would be entitled to the benefits of Rule 28 of having his post converted to the post of Converted Regular Temporary Establishment. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the aforesaid judgment and submitted that all the respondents had proved that they had rendered services to the petitioners for a period of more than five years. The learned counsel for the respondents sought for the dismissal of the petitions. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2005. The Industrial Court, Bhandara was justified in holding that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Act of 1971 by not bringing the respondents on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment after completion of five years of service. 4 No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Industrial Court as the Industrial Court had relied on the judgment in case of State of Maharashtra Versus M.V. Ghalge & another for holding that it was not necessary for the employees to put in the work for 240 days during every year. Since the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE