1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. L.P.A.No.264/2009 IN W.P.No. 3409/2008 ( Ganesh Pundlikrao Deshmukh -versus- Mah. Jeevan Pradhikaran and others ) L.P.A.No.267/2009 IN W.P.No. 3626/2008 ( Ashok Tryambakappa Kapse -versus- Mah. Jeevan Pradhikaran and others ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ DATED : JULY 10, 2009. Heard Shri C.S. Jagdale, learned Counsel for the appellants. These appeals are filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the respondent no.1, against the judgment and order of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court held that the petitioners are entitled for regularization, since they after their initial appointment were made to work as Pump Operator/Fitter and have also obtained qualifications. The respondent no.1 challenged the order of the Industrial Court by way of two Writ Petitions. The main contention of the respondent no.1 was that the appellants were appointed as labourers and were never appointed to work as pump operator/fitter. On completion of 5 years, they were brought on CRTE w.e.f. 1982 and 1989 respectively and they have been given that 2 benefits. However, they cannot be absorbed on CRTE as they were not working as pump operator/fitter. The learned Single Judge, however, came to the conclusion that though the appellants claimed that they were working as pump operator/fitter, they have admitted that they were appointed as labourer on 1977 and 1984 respectively, and they were absorbed on CRTE as per the Kalelkar’s Award in 1982 and 1989 respectively. The learned Single Judge has specifically found that there was no evidence that the appellants were working as pump operator/fitter. On the contrary, there is admission made by the appellants that they were never working as pump operator/fitter during the relevant period. In view of this, we find that the appellants have not been denied any benefits as labourers, but have been brought on CRTE as per the Kalelkar’s Award, they are however, not entitled to any further relief. There is no merit in the Appeals, the same are dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.