1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1250/2010. The Sub Divisional Officer, Minor Irrigation and others. -: VERSUS :- Uttam Namdeorao Nale. 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 : JULY 21, 2010. Heard Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P for petitioners and Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for respondent. Labour Court found termination of respondent from 04.10.1995 in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore unfair labour practice. By the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2005 it granted him relief of reinstatement with continuity, but without any back wages. This order was questioned by the petitioners by filing a Revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act and the learned Member of the Industrial Court has vide judgment dated 26.06.2009 dismissed that ULP Revision No. 20/2006. Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. contends that length of service put in by the respondent was too small and he has 2 been reinstated in public employment though there is nothing on record to show that he entered the service in accordance with law. Shri Saboo, learned counsel points out that the respondent has not been reinstated in any post, but reinstated as daily wager. He further states that during the pendency of the complaint, the respondent was working because of the interim orders and that arrangement continued even during the pendency of the revision. He therefore, states that continuity has been granted only for the purpose of seniority. He invites attention to the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the department had infact forwarded name of present respondent for bringing him on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) as per Kalelkar Award. It is apparent that the admission about forwarding name of respondent for bringing him on CRTE is by witness examined by the petitioner. Completion of 240 days service by respondent is not in dispute. The interim orders were operating all the while, and thus he remained in service. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.