1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURWE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4044 OF 2009 Krida Prabodhini, Kolhapur and anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. Shri. Ajit Ramchandra Patil and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. C. R. Sonawane,AGP. for the Petitioner. Mr. P.D.Dalvi for the Respondent No.1 and 3 to 6. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 PC: 1 This is a writ petition filed by the employer impugning a judgment and order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Industrial Court No.2, Kolhapur holding that they have committed unfair labour practice under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1976. They have been further directed to consider the case of the six complainants and give them status of regular and permanent employees. It is noticed that the concerned employees were appointed 2 in the year 1997 on various posts like Senior Clerk, Rector, Ground-man, Hostel servant and Office peon between 23.7.1997 and 3.4.1999. It is firstly contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents were appointed on posts which were not sanctioned. On perusal of the written statement, I find that there is no such averment in the written statement and that there is no case of the Government that, there was no sanction on the date of the appointment. It is further contended that the appointments were made as per the Government Resolution dated 18.11.1995 and were not made by following due procedure. On perusal of the said Government Resolution, I find that the said G.R. does not provide any procedure for appointment. The contention that due procedure was not followed has not been substantiated. The Industrial Court has correctly held that when workman had each completed 240 days, they ought to have been regularized though their appointment was for 29 days at the time of 3 appointment. The Industrial Court has directed the complainant to continue them by making them regular and permanent. No fault can be found with the reasoning of the Industrial Court and it is not possible to hold that the impugned judgment and order contains any perversity requiring interference under Article 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India. Petition stands disposed off. 2 It is contended that the respondent No.2 Milind Mahadev Patil has resigned. That fact stands recorded. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)