: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.10681 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.10681 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.10681 OF 2004 Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ... Petitioner V/s. Shri Ramesh Jayram Vatane ... Respondent Mr.M.S. Karnik for Petitioner CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 1, 2005 MARCH 1, 2005 MARCH 1, 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This Petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court which directs the petitioner to cease and desist from continuing to deprive the workman of the benefits attached to permanency. According to the workman, he has completed 240 days in service but was continued without being made permanent for over a period of seven years. It is for this reason that the workman filed a Complaint under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 2. Mr.Karnik, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, vehemently submits that unless there is a finding that the employer had continued the workman or a temporary basis with a view to deprive him of permanent : 2 : status, there can be no unfair labour practice. He also submits that there are no posts sanctioned for making the workman permanent in service. 3. The mere fact that the workman had worked for over a period of seven years without being accorded a permanent status would, in my view indicate that he had not been granted that status with a view to deeprive him of the benefits of permanency. The fact that the workman had completed 240 days and had been continued as a temporary workman for over a period of seven years is not denied. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court cannot be faulted for concluding that Item 6 of Schedule IV was attracted. 4. Mr.Karnik submits that unless there are sanctioned posts, the benefits of permanency cannot be granted to the workman. This in my view, would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Item 6 of Schedule IV stipulates that continuing a workman for years together on a temporary basis is an unfair labour practice. Hence, the finding of the Industrial Court cannot be faulted with. 5. Petition rejected.