1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5777 of 2011 Sukhdeo Gopichand Gadpaile Vs. The Executive Engineer, Medical Integrated Unit and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.N. Khadgi, counsels for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th December, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 27.07.2011, allowing the revision filed by the respondents and setting aside the judgment passed by the Labour Court allowing a complaint filed by the petitioner and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Labour Court under section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. It was the case of the petitioner that though he had worked with the respondents since 1984 to 1991, his services were illegally terminated on 16.02.1991 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F and G of the Industrial Disputes act. The respondents filed their reply and denied the claim of the petitioner. It was the case of the respondents that the petitioner was working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and since the Employment Guarantee Scheme is not an Industry, 2 the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court was not tenable. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record partly allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent to provide work to the petitioner as per previous employment and service. The respondents were also directed to pay back wages to the petitioner. The respondents challenged the order passed by the Labour Court in a revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2011 reversed the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the Industrial Court was justified in reversing the order passed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court rightly considered the voluminous oral and documentary evidence on record which clearly proved that the petitioner worked under the employment guarantee scheme. Apart from the oral evidence, the muster-roll produced on record disclosed that the petitioner was working under the employment guarantee scheme. The petitioner had not disputed the muster-roll and his signatures appearing therein. The petitioner had also not disputed the receipt of the wages as shown in the muster-roll. The oral and documentary evidence clearly showed that the petitioner was employed under the employment guarantee scheme and received wages under the same scheme only. The Industrial Court was justified in relying on the judgment reported in 2010 (1) CLR 350 to hold that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not tenable. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner was not employed through the Collector or the Tahsildar and hence it cannot be held that the petitioner was employed under the employment guarantee scheme, is liable to be rejected in view of 3 the voluminous oral and documentary evidence on record which shows that he was employed under the employment guarantee scheme and received wages under the same scheme. The judgment of the Industrial Court being just and proper calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.