1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2881 of 2008 Shri Hiraman Dagdu Patil and another Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents --- Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE R.M. BORDE,JJ.. DATE : 21st FEBRYARY , 2011. PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition impugns the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2007, passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No. 13/2002 filed by the petitioner. 2] The petitioner alleged that the respondents had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 5,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. 2 3] It appears that petitioner No.1 was working with the respondent Corporation in their Health department since 1986 as Majdoor. He made an application on 15/2/1999 seeking retirement on medical ground with a request to take his son in his place on compassionate ground as Class IV employee. The said application was initially allowed. However, when the proposal was sent to the Collector seeking his approval, petitioner No.1 once again was referred to the Medical Board, Dhule. The Medical Board declared him medically fit and hence, the respondent Corporation could not act on the resolution passed by them accepting/allowing the request of the petitioner. The petitioner No.1, instead of reporting for duties, in view of the order passed by the Collector, filed the complaint alleging unfair labour practice. 4] We have perused the judgment of the Industrial Court, wherein, it is clearly recorded that the petitioner No.1 in cross examination has admitted that he did not submit an application to the respondent to report for duty after he was declared medically fit by the Medical Board. On the contrary, he admitted that he had no intention to join the services of the respondents. In view thereof, the Industrial court has rightly held that the petitioners failed to show any unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 is concerned, in our opinion, the same is devoid of any merit. The question of appointment of his son i.e. petitioner No.2 did not arise since the petitioner's request for retirement on medical ground was not accepted. In other words, 3 since his basic request for retirement on medical ground had been turned down,, the question of appointment of his son did not arise. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. [R.M. BORDE,J] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] grt/wp