(1) WP. 295.1993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 295 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra through Sub­Divisional Forest Officer, Nagar Road, Beed .. Petitioner (Ori. 1st Party) VERSUS 1] Shri Chandar Babu More C/o Trade Union Centre Bashirganj, Beed 2] The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad .. Respondents (Ori.2nd Party) Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the Petitioner­State None present for the respondents though served ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:­ 1] By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the award in Reference case bearing IDA no. 35 of 1988 rendered by the Labour Court, Aurangabad. The respondent no.1 was appointed by the petitioner under a specified scheme called "Draught Area Scheme". The petitioner was running the plantation nursery under the said scheme. The respondent was working since 19.9.1984. He alleged that he was employed as a Watchman on monthly salary of Rs.232/­. He alleged that his services were terminated without giving any (2) WP. 295.1993 notice of retrenchment. Consequently, he filed proceedings under section 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent no.1 with continuity in service and backwages wef. 15.3.1987. 2] Though served, the respondents nos. 1 and 2 remained absent. 3] Heard learned AGP Mr. Borade for the petitioner. 4] The only question to be determined in this Petition is whether the respondent no.1 was regularly employed by the petitioner and could be entitled to seek protection on the ground that he was illegally retrenched. 5] It is well settled that a casual labour or employee cannot claim protection in the matter of employment, unless it is shown that he was entitled to legal protection or that the termination is violative of section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no evidence on record to show that the principle "last cum first go" was not followed by the petitioner. The respondent no.1 was not appointed on any post as such. The employment was purely temporary and made on co­terminus basis. With the result, as and when the specific scheme called "Draught Area Scheme" was over, the employment could be brought to (3) WP. 295.1993 the end. It appears from the record that the petitioner issued letter dated 15.2.1988 to the effect that the respondent no.1 may be appointed on daily wages on available rainy season work in Kaij taluka. The respondent no.1 did not avail the opportunity. The labour Court failed to notice that there was no appointment order issued to the respondent no.1. There was no documentary evidence to show that he was being paid monthly salary. The respondent no.1 stated before the labour Court that he was being paid Rs.232/­ per month as wages. The reinstatement of such temporary and casual employee is impermissible. The Apex Court in "Satya Prakash Kanoth Vs. State of Bihar 2010 AIR SCW 2112" and "State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ganpathi Chaya Nayak and others (2010) 3 SCC 115" held that such a casual employment does not get legal protection and reinstatement cannot be allowed. In this view of the matter, the impugned award is un­sustainable. 6] Taking overall view of the matter, I find that the impugned award is un­sustainable and liable to be interferred with. The Petition is therefore allowed. The impugned award is set aside. No costs. Sd/­ [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp