-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.81 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1311 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2001 Shri Tukaram Ramchandra Shinde, .. Appellant. Vs The Dy.Engineer, Minor Irrigation .. Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.88 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1310 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1718 OF 2001 Shri Prakash Nagappa Mashale, .. Appellant Vs The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur, .. Respondent. Ms Manjiri Parasnis i/b Mr G.S.Godbole, for the appellants. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATE : 07/08/2008 DATE : 07/08/2008 DATE : 07/08/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. We have heard Mrs.Manjiri Parasnis, the learned counsel for the appellants, who were engaged as Muster Assistants by the respondent-Zilla Parishad. By the impugned order passed in Civil Application Nos.1311 and 1310 of 2002 filed in the Writ Petitions, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the prayer clause the benefit of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 by relying upon the earlier decisions in the case -2- of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar Vs Daulat Marsingrao Deshmukh and anr, 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 543 and the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to in the said judgment. 2. The scheme framed by the Government of Maharashtra as per the Zilla Parishad dated 1.12.1995 for the absorption of Muster Assistants who were on the roll as on 31.5.1993, originated from the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on the Original Application filed by the Muster Assistants and the Muster Assistants approached the MAT after the Division Bench of this Court held that the Muster Assistants were not workmen as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Ms.Manjiri, referred to the other judgments of the Supreme Court regarding the law laid down while deciding the application filed under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. We are satisfied that the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.8.2002 does not call for any interference in these Appeals. However, it would be appropriate that Writ Petition Nos 1687 of 2001 and 1718 of 2001 are heard expeditiously more so when the petitioners claim that as on 31.5.1993 they were in the employment of the Zilla parishad as Muster Assistants and -3- were, therefore, eligible to be absorbed as per the scheme framed by the Government of Maharashtra vide its G.R.Dated 1.12.1995. 4. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed in limine. 5. The petitioners are at liberty to apply for fixing early date of hearing in Writ petition Nos.1687 of 2001 and 1718 of 2001. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)