1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3234 OF 2008 Sudhakar Amrushi Londhe. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mrs.Anjali S. Ranade for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 18, 2008. P.C. The Labour Court has dismissed a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by its order dated 29th November 2006. The Petitioner was a daily wager with the Hingne Khurd Gram Panchayat. According to the Petitioner, he was working since 1992 and had completed 240 days' service. The burden was on the Petitioner to establish this, by producing documentary evidence. The Labour Court has held that the Petitioner failed to substantiate the contention that he had completed 240 days' service on the basis of the cogent documentary evidence. On the contrary the witness, 2 who deposed on behalf of the First Respondent, stated that the regular process for appointment was not followed, nor was the permission of the Block Development Officer taken. The Labour Court has noted that copies of the Muster Rolls were produced for the period from September 1997 to December 1997 together with the wage book and these documents showed that the Petitioner had not worked for more than 240 days. But, quite apart from the finding that the Petitioner has not completed 240 days' service, the Labour Court also was correct in holding that the appointment of the Petitioner was never made following the regular procedure for selection. The appointment was not made against a sanctioned post. The claim for regularization could not have been validly entertained in law and was, therefore, rejected for justifiable reasons. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that it is the case of the Petitioner that he had in fact, worked from 1992. The Labour Court has observed that there was absolutely no documentary evidence forthcoming in support of the claim. The Petitioner filed a list of documents on 23rd November 2005 before the 3 Labour Court containing an application made to the Vitthalwadi Municipal Council for the production of documents. But that application was disposed of by observing that the records pertaining to the year 1992 were destroyed and were not available. These documents, as the Labour Court noted, were not proved in evidence. Be that as it may, it is obvious that the Petitioner was never appointed by any regular process of selection against a sanctioned post. The claim for regularization was not founded on any valid legal basis. There is no merit in the petition which shall accordingly stand dismissed. ....