1 wp5840-11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5840/2011 (NARENDRA BABANRAO NERKAR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL, KAVI KULGURU INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY, RAMTEK & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.H. Khobragade, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 17 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur 12.04.2010 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to challenge the order of his termination, dated 26.02.1993 with effect from 31.05.1993. The petitioner claimed that he was appointed to the post of Welder on 07.08.1990 and was in continuous service when his services were terminated on 26.02.1993. The petitioner filed an appeal before the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad and later on withdrew it. The petitioner then preferred a complaint before the Labour Court and when it was found that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the same, the appeal was filed before the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in the year 2004. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that since he had attained permanency, his services could not have been terminated. 2 wp5840-11 The respondent-management filed the reply and pleaded that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis. It was pleaded that the petitioner accepted the appointment order, which showed that his services were to be terminated with effect from 31.05.1993. The respondent-management denied that the petitioner was working as a Welder-Mechanic with the management since 1990 and he had attained permanency before his services were terminated with effect from 31.05.1993. The Tribunal, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was appointed as a Mechanic- Welder in the year 1990 and worked as such till 31.05.1993 and, hence, had attained permanency. In fact, the documents placed by the petitioner on record showed that the petitioner worked in the workshop on daily wages @ Rs.18/- per day and since he worked in the month of August for 24 days, he was entitled to a sum of Rs.432/-. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not a salaried employee in the year 1990 and on the contrary, he was working on daily wages. In such a background, according to the Tribunal, the petitioner could not have claimed permanency. The Tribunal relied on the appointment order to hold that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis. Moreover, the Tribunal observed that the management had paid retrenchment compensation to the petitioner and had offered another 3 wp5840-11 job him, which he had declined. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 12.04.2010 so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE