1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.979 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra )..Petitioner Vs Shri Balkrishna Babu Saple )..Respondent ---- W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra )..Petitioners Vs Shri Ramchandra Jijabha Khanvilkar )..Respondent ---- W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.987 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra )..Petitioners Vs Shri Vishwajit Dattatray Khanvilkar )..Respondent ---- Mr.A.P.Vanasare AGP for the State/petitioners. Mr.Ravindra Nair for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 23rd November, 2009. 2 PC 1 Heard learned AGP. These are the petitions filed by the State impugning an award passed by the labour Court, Mahad in the references IDA No.40/2003, IDA No.41/2003 and IDA No.490/2002. By the awards the references have been allowed with cost and the termination orders in respect of the workmen have been set aside and it has been directed that the workmen should be reinstated with full back wages with continuity of service. The workmen in question were appointed in the year 1995 and were terminated in the year 2001. 2 It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the finding in relation to the workmen actually working for 240 days was incorrect. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I find that this finding is based upon the admission given by the petitioners’ witnesses. No fault can be found with this finding. It was next contended that even assuming that the workmen had worked for 240 days, admittedly they were working on daily wages. Their appointments were not on sanctioned posts and under the employment guarantee scheme. In this regard there are no particulars given in the written statement. There is no mention as to when the scheme come to an end and when funds of the scheme were cut off. In view of this position, there is no foundation for this argument. There being no foundation, reliance cannot be placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav, delivered in LPA No.14 of 2008 and pronounced on 31.7.2008. That case related to the question of grant of permanency to the daily wages workers and the Division Bench had held that since there was no sanction post, relief of permanency could not be granted particularly as the question of giving the benefits of the standing order was inter linked 3 with the question of appointment according to rules framed. There is no case that the appointments were illegal perse. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain these petitions and the same are summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4