IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.160 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4976 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Shramik General Kamgar Union ... Respondents Mr. A.P. Vanarse, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Navlekar for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Vide its order dated 20th July, 2007, the Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of all the workmen, however, without back wages. The correctness of this order was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this court. 3. Writ Petition No.4976 of 2008 filed by the State of Maharashtra came to be dismissed vide order dated 1st September, 2008 giving rise to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The arguments raised before us by relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of The State of Maharashtra and another v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav, Letters Patent Appeal No.14 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.4141 of 2006, decided on 31st July, 2008 is that the workmen were not appointed as per the rules by following the prescribed procedure and, therefore, they have no legal right and the Management was not expected to comply with the process of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as they were not workmen. This is primarily a finding of fact which has been recorded both by the Industrial Court as well as the learned Single Judge against the present appellant. 5. It is also contended that in these circumstances, there is no employer-employee relationship. We have already noticed that no such specific plea was taken and in any case, the State has miserably failed to prove even remotely this issued before the Industrial Court. 6. We see no reason to interfere in the finding of facts. Furthermore, it can hardly be disputed that workmen were working with the appellant for a considerable time running over 36 years and obviously, have completed 240 days of continuous service. This issue was hardly contested before the Industrial Court and was sought to be raised before the learned Single Judge which has rightly been rejected for the reasons recorded in para 5 of the impugned judgment. As far as judgment of Division Bench in the case of Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (supra) is concerned, on facts and law it has no application to the present case in asmsuch as there the persons in employment had prayed for permanency and further benefits on the basis of model orders of the State. The view was taken that since they were not appointed in accordance with the rules, their claim was not maintainable. In the present case, there has been wrongful termination in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no reason to interfere. Dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.