1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2781 OF 1994 Ratnakar s/o. Madhukar Sonar, Age Major, R/o. C/o. Madhukar s/o. Anand Sonar, Near Hatnur Colony, Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Dept., Jalgaon. 2. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents. Smt. Sangeet Advocate h/f. Shri. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel for petitioner. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner had filed complaint (ULP) No. 80/1987 in the Labour Court at Jalgaon, invoking the jurisdiction under section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, dealt with Item No. 1 of Schedule IV under the said Act, challenging his termination from service with effect from 1.1.1987. 2. The complainant alleged that he was employed as a daily wager since 1.4.1983 as Chaukidar and his services were terminated orally by the order dated 1.1.1987. He alleged that he had completed more than 240 days continuous service in the employment of the respondents. The 2 respondents, without complying the provisions of section 25-F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act, terminated the services of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was neither given any notice nor was paid any retrenchment compensation, as contemplated by section 25-F and the principle of 'last come first go' was not followed. 3. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the complainant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for 240 days, preceding the date of his termination of service. The Labour Court further recorded a finding that the complainant failed to prove the violation of provisions of section 25-F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also rejected the plea raised by the respondent in written statement that the complainant voluntarily remained absent with effect from 1.12.1986. However, the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages. This was granted on the basis that the termination of the complainant attracted the provision of Item No. 1 (b) of Schedule IV of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that the complainant worked from 1.9.1986 onwards to 1.1.1987 and he was orally terminated from service. This act on the part of employer was not in good faith, but was colourable the exercise of powers. 3. The respondent employer preferred revision application (ULP) No. 165/1992 before the Industrial Court at Nasik. The same was allowed by judgment and order dated 15.10.1993. The judgment and order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 80/1987 on 3 16.12.1991 was set aside. The Industrial Court confirmed the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has failed to establish that he has worked continuously for 240 days, immediately preceding the date of his termination on 1.1.1987. The Industrial Court further concurred with the finding of the Labour Court that there was no violation of section 25-F and G of the said Act. It was held that the order of reinstatement of the petitioner in service was not based upon any faulty reasons. It was directed that there was no evidence on record to held that the provisions of Item 1 (b) of Schedule IV are attracted and hence, the Labour Court had committed an error of jurisdiction in granting reinstatement in service. 4. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has established that he was continuously working for 240 days prior to date of his termination. However, the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the evidence produced on record, particularly the chart, the applications of the petitioner dated 29.5.1987 and 10.12.1987. According to her, the petitioner had established that he was continuously working from 1.4.1983 to 30.11.1986. 5. Both the Courts below have considered the evidence available on record. The petitioner examined himself in support of his case. His evidence has been considered. The finding of both the Courts below is 4 that the petitioner has failed to establish that the was continuously working for 240 days preceding the date of his termination from service on 1.1.1987. The finding is based upon the chart which showed attendance of the complainant from 1.9.1986 till 1.1.1987 on the post. The Revisional Court has held that the petitioner has worked from 1.9.1986 to 28.9.1986 as Chaukidar and from 6.10.1986 to 30.11.1986 as Typist. It has been held that the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk after obtaining the training was not in accordance with law and the petitioner cannot take advantage of it. 6. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are based upon the appreciation of evidence and hence, no fault can be found with it. There is no perversity or jurisdictional error brought to my notice in respect of the findings recorded by the Courts below. At any rate, it is a possible view taken by the Courts below, which does not call for any interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, there is no substance in this petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule is discharged. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp2181.94