1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 423/2010. The Civil Surgeon, Akola and others -: versus :- Vinayak Uddhapuri Gosavi WRIT PETITION No. 424/2010. The Civil Surgeon, Akola and others -: versus :- Ganesh Pralhad Wankhade 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 : MARCH 5, 2010. Heard finally by consent of learned A.G.P. appearing for petitioners and Shri P.S. Wathore, learned counsel for respondent in both the Petitions. The Industrial Court has directed petitioners to absorb respondent sole in both the matters in regular service with continuity from 01.12.1998. The directions appears to have been issued only because of failure on the part of the petitioners to produce documents showing consideration of case of respective respondents for permanent absorption in the light of the policy decision as envisaged in Government Circular dated 19.03.1998 and subsequent policy decisions. Learned AGP has invited attention to separate Civil Applications filed to urge that though those circulars and policy mentioned therein was implemented and additional marks were given to respective respondent to find 2 out their entitlement and accordingly preference was given to them for selection, as the concerned officer did not produce those document before the Industrial Court, Industrial Court has drawn adverse inference. Shri Wathore, learned counsel on the other hand has invited attention to the said policy decision dated 19.03.1998 and relevant observations in paragraph nos. 8, 13, 14 and 15 in its judgment by the Industrial Court to show that the Industrial Court has applied its mind correctly to the controversy. Perusal of the policy decision shows that regularization is not automatic and the respondents wee entitled to some additional marks in the process of selection. Accordingly, they are to be given preference for that selection. The petitioners claim that this process was followed, but as documents could not be filed before the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court could not evaluate the same. The learned Industrial Court has noticed that documents are not filed and merely because documents are not filed, has directed regularization as mentioned above. The absorption in permanent service could not have been granted in this mode and manner because of requirement of government circular dated 19.03.1998 and subsequent policy decision. Respondents ought to have demonstrated that their cases were not considered as per the same and they were victimized. Even in such circumstances, the Industrial Court could have only ordered consideration of their cases in terms of the policy decision. In view of this position, considering the fact that respondents are in employment since 04.12.1995, I am 3 inclined to give parties one more opportunity. The petitioners are permitted to produce relevant documents before the Industrial Court within a period of two months from today. The same shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to each respondent before the Industrial Court within a period of six weeks. If the costs are so paid and documents are produced, Industrial Court shall permit respondents and petitioners to lead additional evidence if any, and shall decide their respective cases in accordance with the law thereafter. Judgment of Industrial Court dated 29.05.2009 is set aside and ULP Complaint is restored back to file for fresh trial. As the matter is being sent back, the Industrial Court shall attempt to decide the matter as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2011. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.