(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2010 1. Raju s/o. Girja Magare, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Service, Fitter GR-II, M.I.D.C., Chikalthana Quarter, Aurangabad. 2. Raju s/o. Dagdu Rathod, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Service, Pump Operator, GR-II, M.I.D.C. Staff Quarter, Jalna. 3. Suresh s/o. Bhaguji Gankwar, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Service, Fitter, GR-II, M.I.D.C. Colony, More Chowk, Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, Aurangabad. 4. Kum. Rekha d/o. Shankar Sabale, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Service, Typist/Jr. Clerk, M.I.D.C. Staff Quarters, Avdhan, Dhule. 5. Prakash s/o. Arun Lambale, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Service, Pump Operator, GR-II, M.I.D.C. Staff Quarters, Avdhan, Dhule. (2) 6. Sow. Rajashree w/o. Bhajuji, Paithanpagare, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Service, Tracer, M.I.D.C. Sub-Division, Deulgaonraja Road, Kanhaiya Nagar, Jalna. 7. Santosh s/o. Rangnath Ugale, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Service, Pump Operator, GR-II, At Deputy Engineer, Maintenance Sub-Division, Ahmednagar. 8. Mastan Shan Ismail Shah, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service, Technical Assistant, M.I.D.C. Sub-Division, Jalna. 9. Umesh s/o. Bhalchandrarao Machale, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Service, Asst. Engineer, M.I.D.C. Division, Aurangabad. 10. Deepak s/o. Manohar Chavan, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Service, Tracer, M.I.D.C. Sub-Division, Latur. 11. Ramesh s/o. Kushaba Doiphode, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service, Surveyor, Regional Office, M.I.D.C., Latur. (3) 12. Vinod s/o. Jagannathrao Choudhari, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Service, Technical Assistant, M.I.D.C. Sub-Division, Jalna. 13. Bagul s/o. Nandkumar Parashram, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service, Pump Operator, GR-II, M.I.D.C. Maintenance Sub-Division, Ahmednagar. 14. Kishore s/o. Shivajirao Jadhav, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Service, Asst. Engineer (E & M), M.I.D.C. Staff Quarters, Sub-Division, Parbhani. 15. Rahul s/o. Shankarrao Tidke, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Service, Asst. Engineer, R/o. Ujwal Co-op. Housing Society, Sawedi, Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary (Industries), Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. (4) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, M.I.D.C. "Udyog Sarthi", Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (East), Mumbai-93. 3. M.I.D.C. Employees' Union C/o. Milind Arunrao Shinde, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Bapu Bangala, Plot No. 8-B, Sadguru Gruh Mandal, Rotary Bhavan, Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.G. Kanade, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 (5) ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. It is not in dispute that the facts in the present case are identical with the facts in Writ Petition No. 4384/2008. In the said case also, services of the petitioners therein were not regularized even inspite of completion of probation period. The stand taken by the respondent / MIDC was that in view of the order dated 6th June 2005, services of the petitioners therein could not be confirmed, or made permanent, in view of the order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, dated 6th June 2005. 3. After considering the rival submissions, we have held in the said case, that the order passed by the Industrial Court, dated 6th June 2005, which admittedly was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the parties before it, was not sustainable in law. It has further been held that the candidates who had completed probation period, after being appointed in accordance with due selection process, ought to have been confirmed. 4. In the present case, Mr. R.S. Shinde, learned Counsel (6) appearing for respondent no.3 / Union which had approached the Industrial Court, vehemently opposes the petition. 5. However, it is brought to our notice, in the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner, that the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4384/2008, dated 7th October 2009, was challenged by the respondent no.3 herein, before the Apex Court, by way of Special Leave Petition filed in 2010 (CC 4006/2010) and the Apex Court has dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. 6. In that view of the matter, we find that the present petitioners are also entitled to be governed by the order passed by this Court, dated 7th October 2009, in Writ Petition No. 4384/2008. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 / Corporation is directed to confirm the services of the petitioners from the date on which each of them has successfully completed their probation period and grant them all benefits consequential to such confirmation. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (7) 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners undertakes that the deficit court fees shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp260