1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. W.P.NO.5267/08 Smt.Nirvanda Sahadeo Zibe ...vs.. The Nagpur Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.V.P.Marpakwar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.S.Y.Deopujari, Adv. for the respondents. Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 2nd JULY, 2009. 1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, whereby she rejected the complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The complainants/petitioner had contended that they have been working with the respondent/bank for more than 240 days and they are 2 therefore deemed to have become permanent employees of the respondent/bank. 2. The said complaint was opposed by the respondent/Bank on the ground that the employees were not engaged by the respondent on daily wages but they were merely engaged as sweepers for the purpose of cleaning the premises of the bank. It was also contended by the respondent/Bank that they were being paid Rs.100/- per month. As far as complaint of Shobha w/o Laxmanrao Dhekale is concerned, same was already dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned judge of the Industrial Court found that the petitioner was merely a casual worker engaged for the purpose of cleaning the premises of the bank and cannot be, therefore, said to be an employee of the bank. She, therefore, dismissed the complaint. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 4. The learned judge has found as a fact that the complainant was merely engaged for the purpose of cleaning the premises of the bank and she was not a permanent employee. In view of this, I do not find that 3 there is any need to interfere in the findings recorded by the court. There is no substance in the writ petition. It is dismissed. JUDGE. chute