1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3204 OF 2011 (Sou. Yashodabai M. Kale vs. Union of India and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. ------ CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 8, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15/3/2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur whereby Reference in question being CGIT/NGP/01/2001 in respect of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner came to be decided against her. The petitioner claimed to be a workman with the Telecom Department, Wardha from March 1993 and was allotted sweeping work in the old building besides other work and she was working as 2 a part time worker and was getting wages of Rs.300/- per month. It is her case that she was continuing as such upto 7/1/2000. It is further her case that when she went to report for duties on 8/1/2000, she was not allowed to enter the premises, upon which she issued a notice to the Telecom Department on 17/1/2000 seeking reinstatement in service. This resulted in the matter reaching Conciliation Officer and on the failure report given by the Conciliation Officer, the dispute in question was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record and more especially the admission of the petitioner has come to a conclusion that she was working with the Contractor from the year 1998 to 2000 and it was her own admission that when the Contractor disengaged her, she raised the industrial dispute. The evidence produced by the petitioner which, inter alia, is a xerox copy of the receipt showing payment of wages for the period from December 1999 to 5 th January 2000 amounting to 3 Rs.1800/- along with copy of the demand draft by which the said amount was purportedly paid to her was also considered by the Tribunal. However, on perusal, the Tribunal found that the demand draft was favouring one B.R. Manwatkar and not the petitioner. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that from the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the petitioner was working under the Contractor and not with the Telecom Department and hence, the case of the petitioner that she was terminated on 7/1/2000 by the respondents herein could not be accepted. Having perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 15/3/2011. No case for interdiction in the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj 4