bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3792 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3792 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3792 OF 2008 Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kolhapur ... Petitioner v/s Balwant Yashwant Mangure ... Respondent Mr.M.L.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Tadake for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 30TH AUGUST, 2008 30TH AUGUST, 2008 30TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.102 of 2003. The Industrial Court has held that the petitioner Bank has committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The petitioner Bank has been directed to classify the respondent employee as permanent from the date from which he has completed 240 days in service. A further direction to pay him the consequential benefits from that date has also been passed. 3. In a similar complaint, the Industrial Court had 2 passed an order on 17.10.2007 granting relief to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner Bank filed Writ Petition No.312 of 2008. This Court, by its order dated 23.4.2008 has rejected the petition filed by the Bank. 4. In my opinion, the order of the Industrial Court cannot be faulted as there is evidence on record to indicate that the workman had been in continuous service for a long period of time and in any event he has completed 240 days in service. The petitioner Bank ought to have conferred the permanent status on the workman in accordance with the Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, which is applicable to the petitioner Bank. A permanent employee is defined as one who has completed a total probationary period of six months in service. Once the Industrial Court has concluded that the workman had completed 240 days in service, the Industrial Court was bound to pass the order that it has. 5. There is no need to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no reason to take a view which is different from the view taken by this Court in Writ Petition No.312 of 2008. 3 6. Writ petition rejected.