1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 620 OF 2010. The Executive Engineer, PWD No.2 and another. -: VERSUS :- Ashok Amrutrao Dhengre and others. 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 : NOVEMBER 25, 2010. Heard finally Shri Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for petitioners and Shri S. Malode, learned Counsel for respondents, by making Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P.contends that interim orders of Labour Court were complied with and that compliance has been treated as final by Labour Court without adjudicating upon any material facts to enable it to record a finding of indulgence in unfair labour practice falling under Item no.1 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents were regularized 2 or any permanency was given to them as per the policy decision dated 01.12.1995. Lastly and in the alternative, it is urged that grant of continuity is contrary to that policy. Shri Malode, learned Counsel for respondents contends that the grant of interim order by Labour Court is not in dispute. Accordingly from the date of that order respondents were in service and because of specific policy decision they have been given permanency. A Pursis declaring this was filed by the respective respondent before the Labour Court vide Exh. 35, 40 and 42. The Labour Court has accepted that Pursis. In view of this no express relief of reinstatement has been given and back wages are also declined and only continuity from 22.08.1988 has been granted. In revision filed by the petitioners, there is no contention that the respondents were not given any permanency. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel I have perused the papers. The petitioners before this Filed ULP Revision No. 261 to 270 of 2006 before the Industrial Court. Only ground there in is, grant of continuity to respondents/employees by the Labour Court violated condition of government resolution dated 01.12.1995. The respondents were terminated on 3 22.08.1988 and Labour Court has granted them interim reinstatement on 19.09.1988. They have thereafter continued in service. Pursis filed by them communicating grant of permanency was not subjected to any challenge before the Labour Court and there is no such challenge in the memo of revision. There is no specific challenge even before this Court. The learned A.G.P. has been seeking time to obtain instructions in this respect. It is apparent that the Revisional Court has rightly considered the controversy raised before it. However, Shri Malode, learned Counsel has fairly stated as respondents are granted permanency as per resolution dated 01.12.1995, if that resolution does not enable them to claim any continuity of past service, the respondents will not claim it. The petitioners are therefore free to verify this position and take appropriate steps in this respect. If the respondents are found not entitled to any continuity, the same shall be communicated to the respective respondents immediately, after such decision is taken. The petitioners are free to take such decision as early as possible and in any case by 31.03.2011. If the decision is adverse to the respondents, they are free to challenge it before appropriate forum. 4 With the above clarification, writ petition is partly allowed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.