1 wp-4260-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO.4260 OF 2009 Smt.Halima M.Hanif Shaikh ..Petitioner Vs. The District Social Welfare Officer, Solapur and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. A.V.Chatuphale Adv. for Petitioner Mr. A.P.Vanarse AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner-original complainant is working as Cook in the Ladies Hostel at Indira Nagar Road, Solapur since 1984. Thereafter, from 15th August, 1998 she was working as sweeper. It is her case that she was appointed in a vacant post and she was continuously working for 11 2 wp-4260-09 years and though she was working for 11 years in the said post, she has not been made permanent. She preferred Complaint (ULP) No.237 of 1997 before the Industrial Court, Solapur under Item Nos.5, 6,9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. 4. By order dated 28th July, 2003, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint. It held that the respondents had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and the respondents were directed to make the complainant permanent in the post as part time sweeper and pay her Rs.690/- per month from the date of passing of the said order. According to the complainant, she ought to have been made permanent in the post of "full time" sweeper and not part time sweeper as directed by the Industrial Court, hence, being aggrieved by the directions to make the complainant permanent in the post as "part time" sweeper, this writ petition has been preferred. 5. First of all, it is seen that the order which is impugned in this petition is dated 28th July, 2003 and this writ petition has been filed after almost six years. No sufficient ground has been furnished by the petitioner for delay in preferring this petition. Hence, on this ground alone, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Even otherwise, on going through the evidence, it is seen that the petitioner has admitted that she was appointed as "part time" employee with respondent no.1. She has admitted that she was paid as per the 3 wp-4260-09 Government Rules from time to time, attendance register is maintained by the respondent no.1. She has admitted that there was no post of sweeper with the respondent no.1 and she was employed as per the need of work. It is further admitted by her that the post of sweeper was not in existence, therefore, no post of sweeper has been filled in by the respondent no.1. She has also admitted that she was not appointed on a vacant post. She has further admitted that her name has not been recommended by the Selection Committee for the post of Peon, Watchman and Cook. She has admitted that there is no one working with the respondent as a Sweeper on permanent basis. In view of the admissions given by the petitioner in her evidence, no error can be found in the order of the Industrial Court directing that the complainant be made permanent in the post of "part time" sweeper. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Circular dated 6.4.1999 in support of his contention that in view of this Circular, the petitioner ought to have been made permanent in "full time" post. However, it is seen that the petitioner has not produced the Circular before the Industrial Court nor any evidence has been led in respect of this Circular. There is no pleading in respect of Circular dated 6.4.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that in the complaint, reference has been made by the complainant about the Circular. However, on perusal of the complaint, I find that there is no 4 wp-4260-09 no specific reference to any particular Circular, no date has been given of the Circular or on what issue the Circular has been issued. The pleadings as well as evidence of the complainant are silent on this issue. Hence, at such belated stage after a period of six years when the reference is made to the said Circular for the first time before this Court, this Circular cannot be taken into consideration. No case is made out for interference. 8. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]