1 wp8262.09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8262 OF 2009 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.L. Shahane holding for Mr. Pradeep Shahane, advocate for respondent. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Bedre for petitioner and Mr. Shahane for respondent. Two contentions raised by Advocate Mr. Bedre are, (i) respondent-employee did not prove completion of 240 days continuous service and (ii) the entitlement to coverage under agreement is not established on record. Attention has been invited to the impugned judgment to substantiate this aspect, more particularly, paragraph no.9 has been pressed into service. 2. According to Advocate Mr. Shahane, the employee has proved involuntary unemployment, and therefore, completed 240 days continuous service as required by clause 4-C of Model Standing Order. He is relying upon 2 wp8262.09 the discussion in paragraph no.7 for that purpose. He further points out that agreement dated 05.10.1987 does not prescribe any cut of date and hence, the respondent who has put in 240 days continuous service was entitled to its benefit. 3. Existence of agreement dated 05.10.1987 and its being in force in 1995 and filing of complaint in the year 1995 is not in dispute. Thus, the respondent-employee pointed out failure to implement an agreement still in force. Industrial Court has considered the controversy in this background and its discussion in paragraph no.7 shows that system of rotation was being followed and therefore, there was involuntary unemployment. It has therefore found that the respondent has completed 240 days continuous service. In view of this finding, burden was upon the petitioner-employer to produce documents to show that the employee-respondent has not completed 240 days continuous service. No such record is produced. That finding is reached by the Industrial Court in paragraph no.9. 4. After verification of the record, it is admitted position that the agreement dated 05.10.1987 does not prescribe any cut of date for its coverage or applicability. Thus, all the employees who have put in 240 days continuous service get its benefit. The right given to management to select the category of employees for 3 wp8262.09 grant of said benefit is obviously as per the seniority to be prepared under Clause 4-D of the Model Standing Orders. 5. In this situation, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity, hence the Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 14.03.2011 gas/wp8262.09