1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6221 OF 2005 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nasik & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Madhav Fakira Shelke & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Sardar Kurne i/b. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioners. Mr. R.D. Matkari for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 24, 2008. P.C. By its order dated 23rd February 2004, the Industrial Court disposed of the Revision Application filed by the First Respondent against the judgment of the Labour Court, dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practices, by directing the Petitioners herein, to consider the case of the First Respondent for absorption in regular service in accordance with the scheme prepared by the State Government in the Government Resolution dated 1st December 1995 and 21st April 1999. 2 2. A notice was issued in these proceedings and in pursuance thereof, an affidavit in reply has been filed by the Deputy Collector, Employment Guarantee Scheme. The First Respondent was employed under a Project governed by the Employment Guarantee Scheme on a temporary basis, on 1st December 1984 and his services came to be terminated on 13th September 1986. The First Respondent challenged his termination in a complaint of unfair labour practices which was dismissed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court by its impugned order directed the Petitioner to consider the case of the First Respondent in terms of the Government Resolution already noted above. By a Government Resolution dated 26th May 1993, the State Government decided that the services of Muster Assistants who were employed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme be terminated. By a subsequent Government Resolution dated 1st December 1995, the Government directed that all Muster Assistants in service under the Employment Guarantee Scheme as on 31st May 1993 and Muster 3 Assistants whose names are included in the Seniority List should be considered for absorption in Government service on posts in a similar pay scale subject to the candidates possessing necessary qualifications. In the affidavit in reply it has been stated that the scheme formulated in the Government Resolution dated 1st December 1995 was approved by the Supreme Court on 2nd December 1996 in Civil Appeal 15339 of 1996. The First Respondent was terminated from service on 13th September 1986 and admittedly was not in service as on 31st May 1993. Consequently, it has been submitted that the benefits provided for by the Government Resolution dated 1st December 1995 and by the subsequent Government Resolution dated 21st April 1999 cannot be allowed to the First Respondent. 3. The impugned order passed by the Industrial Court only directed that the case of the First Respondent be considered in terms of the aforesaid two Government Resolutions dated 1st December 1995 and 21st April 1999. A reading of the two Government Resolutions would make it clear that they would govern those Muster Assistants who are in service as on 31st May 1993. Since the First 4 Respondent does not fulfill the requisite condition which is prescribed by the GR, there is no merit in the claim for absorption. In these circumstances, the petition shall stand disposed of, with the aforesaid observations. .....