1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5480/1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11677/1999 Ramrao s/o Bhivsanrao Tikande, Age : 40 years, Occu. Service, R/o Hirapur, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. ...Petitioner. Versus Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Opp. Gajanan Maharaj Temple, Garkheda area, Aurangabad. ...Respondent. ........ Shri S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent sole. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. Date : 24 th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. 2 This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 06/11/2005 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in complaint (ULP) No.170/1993. The complaint of the petitioner filed in items no. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule – IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. ACT, 2 1971 has been dismissed. 3 Shri Kulkarni learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that by virtue of interim order granted by this Court on 24/11/1995, the petitioner was provided with the work. However, thereafter interim order was modified on 02/04/1996 directing that the petitioner may be continued on the same terms and conditions as the petitioner was previously employed, until further orders. This modification was made in view of the statement made by then learned A.G.P. for the petitioner that “every year for some months during season and there was no work available for his employment for the whole year”. The learned A.G.P. was asked to take instructions as to the position of the petitioner in the employment. Learned A.G.P. has pointed out the communication from Dy. Executive Engineer issued on 23/06/2010 stating that the petitioner is not in the employment. It seems that after the interim order was modified on 02/04/1996, the petitioner might not have been provided the employment. 4 So far as the challenge to the order passed by the Industrial Court is concerned, the findings of fact are recorded that the petitioner was 3 working in the year 1981 only during the rainy season as guage-clerk, as and when the work was available. Further finding is recorded that the provision of Industrial employment standing orders Act, 1946 and clause -4 C of the Model Standing Orders, is not applicable. It is further held that even the petitioner completed 240 days service in the year 1984, that does not give him right to get permanency. The Court has specifically recorded the finding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was in continuous employment as a casual or the daily wager or temporary employee for the whole year. In respect of favouritism by retaining juniors, finding is recorded that there is no pleading and proof. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any perversity in the finding recorded by Industrial Court, while dismissing the complaint. There is no document produced on record to establish that the petitioner was entitled to claim under items no. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule -IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. ACT, 1971 Act. At any rate, it is possible view taken by the Industrial Court. It does not call for any interference. In the result, there is no substance in the petition. 4 ORDER The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. In view of dismissal of the petition, nothing survive in the civil application. Hence, civil application disposed of. (R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) tsk/wp5480.95