1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1458 OF 2010. State of Maharashtra and others. -: VERSUS :- Manik Narayan Bopche Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. Heard Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for petitioner and Shri M.P. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for respondent. By the impugned order passed below Exh.2, the learned Member of Industrial Court has directed petitioners to extend the status as CRTE employee to the respondent. Learned A.G.P. states that the relief of reinstatement given to respondent by the Labour Court vide its judgment dated 19.08.2002 has been set aside by this Court on 11.12.2009 and hence, there is no question of employee putting any 5 years of continuous service. He points out that the employee was given work after his alleged 2 termination on 25.03.1990, for the first time in the year 2008 and he has still not completed 5 years period thereafter. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent states that the employee had entered the service as daily wager way back in the year 1976 and till 25.10.1990 he has worked continuously. His contention is, under Clause 28 of the Kalelkar Award, completion of 240 days of continuous service in each year, is not a condition and as the respondent has put in 5 years continuous service before 25.10.1990, he ought to have been brought on CRTE. The Industrial Court has recognized that status and accordingly interim relief has been given. In this situation, as prima facie it appears that the employee has completed 5 years of service prior to 25.10.1990, because of clause 28 of the Kalelkar Award he has assumed the status of CRTE employee at that moment only and the learned Member of the Industrial Court has therefore recognized that status. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention of learned A.G.P. as the judgment delivered by this Court on 11.12.2009 may not be very relevant for deciding the issue. The learned Industrial Court has only taken prima facie view of the matter. I do not find any 3 jurisdictional error or perversity in the same. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Proceedings in Complaint (ULPA) No. 15/2008 before the Industrial Court are expedited and the Industrial Court shall attempt to decide the sale as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2011. JUDGE Rgd.