1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1383 OF 2008 Bhika S/o Tukaram Ramale, Age: 52 years, Occu. Service, R/o Plot No.52, Omnagar, Near Akashwani Kendra, Deopur, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through: Secretary, Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Copy to be served on Government Pleader of High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Commissioner of Labour, Commerce Centre, VIIth Floor, Taddeo, Mumbai-34. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mahalaxmi Chamber, Takali Corner, Bombay Agar Road, Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik. 2 4. The Asstt. Commissioner of Labour, Rajendra Bhavan, Vivekanand Nagar, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ...... Mr.R.L.Chintalwar & Mr. S.R.Chintalwar Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr..D.V.Tele , AGP for Respondent no.1. ......... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE .J. DATE : 27 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT:- ( Per S.B.Deshmukh ) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This petition takes an exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 195/2006. The learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has passed this order on 16th July 2007. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took us to Annexture-B. It’s copy of the adverse remarks taken in the 3 confidential report of petitioner in the year 2002-2003 ( for the specific period with effect from 1st April 2002 to 2nd August 2002). Undisputedly, these adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner challenged said remarks by filing appeal before the appellate authority. Counsel for the petitioner took us through Annexture- C. Grievance has been raised that at the relevant time, petitioner was looking after two districts i.e. Dhule and Nandurbar. Bias has been alleged against one Mr. V.S.Tejale Annexture-D is the communication informing that the appeal of the petitioner for removal of adverse remarks has been rejected. This appeal pertains to the period of 1st April 2002 to 2nd August 2002. We have considered another communication Exh.-E. Annexture-F is relevant here also confidential report and remarks are adverse to the petitioner. The document is dated 14th December 2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasize merit certificate Annexture- I. This certificate appears to have been issued by District Collector, Dhule for the efforts taken by the petitioner in campaign of Small Savings Activity during the year 2001-2002. 4. Learned A.G.P. points out affidavit on record filed on behalf of 4 respondents. First one is affirmed by Tukaram Cholke, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik. Second affidavit on record is affirmed by one Mr. Vasant Tejale, Deputy Commissioner of Labour Mumbai. He supported the order passed by Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have seen the order passed by the Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.195/2006 dated 16th of July 2007. From the order passed by Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, it appears that on behalf of the respondents, affidavit in reply was presented. It was considered by the Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was not fully satisfied, direction was given and some clarification pertaining to maintenance of ephemeral roll was sought. In view of the directions additional affidavit in reply / supplementary affidavit in reply, was filed by the Deputy 5 Commissioner of Labour. Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, has considered the submissions, pleadings and material placed on record by the parties. Ephemeral roll for the year 2002-2003 is part of Judgment of Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and more specifically para 11. Learned Tribunal carefully considered the material brought on record and has arrived at conclusion that there is no case for interference. 6. We have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. This petition has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. We have considered scope of the judicial review by this Court Under Article 226. In our opinion, petitioners grievance was considered by the appellate authority, representation made on behalf of the petitioner was considered by the Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai. The Tribunal, has recorded reasons in its order. In our view order impugned in this writ petition is an apple- 6 pi order. No ground for interference. Writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) Dated: 27/09/2010 dsp/1383.08