IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3066 OF 2009 General Secretary, Sangli Zilla General Kamgar Sabha, Sangli ...Petitioner Vs. Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Sangli Sub Division & Ors. .. Respondents --- Shri Umesh R. Mankapure for Petitioner Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondents ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 22ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Learned AGP for the Respondents 2. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated5.12.2008 passed by the Industrial Court in a complaint filed by the Petitioner under section 28(i) r/w. Item No.6,9,10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 3. By the said judgment and order, the Industrial Court was pleased to dismiss the complaint which had been filed by the Petitioner herein, claiming permanency of its members, who according to the complaint had put in minimum 4 years to maximum 15 years of service and had worked for 240 days in each year and thus rendered the continuous service as provided under section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention of the Petitioner was that pursuant to the Kalelkar Settlement, its members were appointed in the forest department and the Respondents had not given them permanency in service and had continued to appoint them on temporary basis. The Petitioner had examined four witnesses in support of his contention. The Respondents filed their written statement and contended that the Kalelkar Settlement was not applicable to the forest department and there was no specific denial that the members of the Petitioner union had not worked for 240 days in a year. No evidence was led by the Government in support of its case. The Industrial Court in paragraph 6 of its order, has made an observation that the Respondents had denied that the Complainant had worked for 240 days in each year. The Industrial Court has further made an observation that admittedly the members of the Petitioner union had not worked for 5 years prior to 1996. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the said observation made by the Industrial Court was not borne out from the record and no such admission was given by any witnesses who were examined by the Petitioner union. 5. In my view, there is much substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. There is no discussion in the impugned order about the evidence led by the Petitioner union and no-where the admission given by the Petitioner union that its members had worked for 5 years prior to 1996. Before recording a finding, the Industrial Court has not discussed the evidence on record. There is, therefore, a clear non-application of mind on the part of the Industrial Court in passing the impugned order. The Industrial Court has clearly taken into consideration the ratio of a judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v/s. Uma Devi and Others reported in 2006 II C.L.R. page 261 and on the basis of the aforesaid finding, dismissed the complaint. 6. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court with a direction to decide the complaint on merits and in accordance with law after going through the evidence which is produced by the Petitioner on record. The Petitioner as well as the Respondents are at liberty to lead any further evidence and bring on record any other documentary evidence and, if any application is filed by the Petitioner or the Respondents, the same shall be considered favourably. 6. Under these observations, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of six months. V.M. KANADE J.