1 wpgroup.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5032 of 1999 Lagwad Adhikari and Others .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Sambhaji Abasaheb Shitole .. Respondent Mr.P.G.Sawant, A.G.P., B Panel for the State/petitioners ‘ ’ WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5205 of 2000 The Director, Social Forestry, Maharashtra State, Pune and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Arun Dhondiba Chavan .. Respondent Mr.A.D.Kango for the petitioners WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5209 of 2000 The Director, Social Forestry, Maharashtra State, Pune and Anr. .. Petitioners 2 wpgroup.doc Vs. Shri Appa Pandurang Marade .. Respondent Mr.A.D.Kango for the petitioners Mr.A.D.Kango for the petitioners CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 8th JUNE, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the State in Writ Petition No.5032 of 1999 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5205 of 1999 and 5209 of 1999. 2. None for the respondents though duly served. 3. These petitions have been heard together and are being decided by common judgment. Facts and law involved in these petitions are identical. 4. Respondent original claimant filed complaint under section 28(I) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 under item 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV seeking permanency in service. 5. It is the case of the respondent that he was working with petitioners for the last several years on daily wages. He worked 3 wpgroup.doc for more than 240 days before filing the complaint in the Industrial Court. 6. Considering the facts and evidence on record, the Industrial Court directed the petitioners to make the respondent original complainant regular employee and offer him all the benefits of permanency and to calculate the arrears of permanency and pay the amount within three months from the date of passing of the order. 7. Being aggrieved by this orders passed by Industrial Court, the petitioner preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At the time of admission, this court observed that as the respondent original complainant was in service, there was no question of granting any interim relief in favour of the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the facts involved in these petitions are similar to the facts involved in Writ Petition No.3274 of 2002 - Conservator of Forest and Others vs. Savala Dhondiba Pise and other connected matters which have been dismissed by the learned single Judge of this court 4 wpgroup.doc (Coram: Smt. Justice Nishita Mhatre) by judgment dated 8.9.2010. 9. Since the facts involved in the present writ petitions are similar to the facts involved in writ petition no.3274 of 2002 and connected matters, these petitions are disposed of in terms of judgment dated 8.9.02 passed in writ petition no.3274 of 2002 and other connected petitions. 10. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.)