1 wp1856.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1856 OF 2011 [Haribhau Rambhau Chandane vs. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Beed.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Parag Shahane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for respondent sole. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : This petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 19-11-2008 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 20 of 2001. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that page 41 of the compilation i.e. days for which he has worked for the respondent has not been considered by the Labour Court. According to him, he has worked for 314 days in the year 1998-1999. 2 wp1856.11 He further submits that findings recorded by the Labour Court in Para-6 are perverse. Those are not in consonance with the evidence led by the parties. He further submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner has not worked with the respondent for 240 days is contrary to the evidence produced on record by the petitioner. According to Counsel for the petitioner, Sub Divisional Engineer, P.W.D. has issued statement of working days of the petitioner and therefore, such document need not be proved. 3. Learned A.G.P. vehemently opposed this writ petition and submits that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages. The petitioner was given work on daily wages on 21-08-1998 and work was not further extended from 21-08-1999 and therefore, the petitioner has no any right 3 wp1856.11 to claim reinstatement, back wages or permanency. Learned A.G.P., therefore, submits that, the petition is devoid of any merits and prays that same may be dismissed. 4. Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent and upon perusal of Para-6 in the impugned judgment, it clearly appears that the petitioner has not substantiated the contention of the petitioner that he has worked more than 240 days by leading cogent evidence. No such evidence was led before the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that there is no any appointment letter issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages. No any notification or any document was placed on record to show that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent – employer. Therefore, in my 4 wp1856.11 opinion, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court calls no interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11