.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1] LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.39 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3948 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.39 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through, Vibhagiya Krishi Sah. Sanchalak Nashik and two others. ..Appellants. Versus Smt.Mangala Bhaskar Jadhav. ..Respondent. .... ALONG WITH [2] LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3954 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through, Vibhagiya Krishi Sah. Sanchalak Nashik and two others. ..Appellants. Versus Smt.Pakharabai Lahanu Dhule. ..Respondent. .... ALONG WITH [3] LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.41 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3956 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.41 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, .{2}. through, Vibhagiya Krishi Sah. Sanchalak Nashik and two others. ..Appellants. Versus Smt.Shantabai Sitaram Shevare. ..Respondent. .... ALONG WITH [4] LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.42 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3038 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.42 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through, Vibhagiya Krishi Sah. Sanchalak Nashik and two others. ..Appellants. Versus Smt.Jagan Hiraman Gavare. ..Respondent. .... ALONG WITH [5] LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.43 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3941 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.43 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through, Vibhagiya Krishi Sah. Sanchalak Nashik and two others. ..Appellants. Versus Smt.Sindhubai Deoram Argade. ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.P. Vanarase, A.G.P., for the appellants. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate for the respondents. .... CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the appellant - .{3}. State and the learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. These Letters Patent Appeals are involving common question of fact and law. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeals are heard together and now being disposed off by this common order. 3. The respondents were working with the appellant on daily wages since 1984, except respondent in L.P.A. No.43 of 2009 i.e. Smt.Sindhubai Deoram Argade, who joined employment in the year, 1994. 4. The case of the respondents is that they worked with the appellants on daily wages for years together and they worked for more than 240 days in each year and thereby rendered continuous service. Hence as per the Government Resolution, on completion of working for more than 240 days, they were entitled to permanency. However, as they were not made permanent, they filed complaints. The said complaints came to be allowed by the Industrial Court by judgment and order dated 1st September, 2005. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred .{4}. Writ Petition Nos.3948/2007, 3954/2007, 3956/2007, 3038/2007 & 3941/2007. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 2nd July, 2007 rejected the said Writ Petitions. Hence, these Letters Patent Appeals. 5. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that they are not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the complaints were not maintainable. It was also inter alia contended that none of the respondents had completed 240 days of work continuously and hence they were not liable for the benefit of permanency. The Industrial Court rejected both the contentions of the appellants. 6. The main contention of the appellant is that the Industrial Court did not permit the appellants to lead evidence and instead the case was closed for arguments. It was submitted that if the appellants had been allowed to lead evidence, they could have proved that the respondents were seasonal employees and the horticulture department is not a industry. 7. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the appellant is a horticulture department and the respondents were working as .{5}. agriculture labourers in the said department on daily wages. As far as the horticulture department being industry is concerned, the Industrial Court was right in holding that the horticulture department is a industry based on the judgment of the Apex Court. As far as the second aspect is concerned, there is no evidence to rebut the stand of the respondents that they had worked for 240 days continuously for five years. 8. As far as the aspect that the appellants were not permitted to lead evidence on various points including the fact that the complainants had not completed 240 days in each year, it is seen that the rozanama indicates that on 19.10.2004 the matter was adjourned for the evidence of the appellants. Thereafter the appellants either did not remain present on the date of hearing or sought adjournment for leading evidence. The complaints were adjourned on seven occasions and thereafter the complaints were fixed for arguments. Even at the stage of arguments, the appellants sought adjournments on several occasions. Ultimately the complaints came to be decided on 1.9.2005. Thus, it is seen that though the matter was adjourned from time to time for almost one year, no steps were taken by the appellants to .{6}. lead evidence and to prove their case. It is seen that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellants to lead evidence and to prove their case. However, despite sufficient opportunity being given to the appellants, they did not lead any evidence. In such case, no fault can be found with the Industrial Court in deciding the complaint. Moreover, it may be stated here that though the Industrial Court allowed the complaints on 1.9.2005, that order was challenged by filing Writ Petitions which came to be filed in this Court in April, 2007 i.e. after almost two years. We find that at all stages there has been lethargy and inaction on the part of the appellants. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge wherein it is observed that the submission that the matter should be remanded for deciding afresh cannot be accepted. 9. It is seen that the appellants are not diligent in following up the matter. There has been delay and negligence on their part at all stages. Hence, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appears are dismissed. Civil Applications are also disposed of. .{7}. [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]