1 group ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2019 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Maroti Shriram Sathe .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2021 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Suryakant Vithoba Mote .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2036 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Abdul Rahim Shaikh .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2046 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Suresh Shankar Bhosale .. Respondent 2 group WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2049 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Satish Sadashiv Pawar .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2245 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Vijay Pandurang Sonawale .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2264 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Sou.Mandakini Apposaheb Pawar .. Respondent Mr.P.G.Sawant B Panel Advocate for the Government ‘’ ’ Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the respondents CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 21st MARCH, 2011 3 group P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 4. The facts of these cases and the issues involved in these cases are similar. Therefore, I have decided all these cases by a common judgment. 5. By this petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the common judgment dated 23.4.10 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Sangli in Complaint (ULP) No.53 of 2005 directing the petitioners to extend the benefits of permanency to the respondents from 1.1.06. Few facts of the matter are as under: 6. The respondents filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practices under section 28 r/w item nos.6, 9 and 10 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court at Sangli on the ground that they were appointed in a clear vacant post after following due process of law. The petitioners gave an advertisment in Daily Tarun Bharat newspaper. ‘ ’ Accordingly, they applied for respective posts. They were duly interviewed and appointed on clear vacant post mentioned in each complaint on the different dates as mentioned by each of the respondents in the complaint. They worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and rendered continuous service to the petitioners. 4 group 7. In the complaint, they prayed that they may be confirmed in the service on the date when they joined employment and the petitioners may be directed to extend the status and benefits of the permanency to the respondents from the date of joining the employment or at any other date as the Hon ble Court may deem fit. At the time of deciding those ’ complaints, the Industrial Court relied on previous orders of this Hon ble ’ Court (Coram: R.S.Mohite, J.) dated 11.12.2009 in Writ Petition No.4044 of 2009. In that matter also, the petitioners were employed and worked for more than 240 days in a year and the petitioners were employed by Deputy Director, Sports and Youths Services, Maharashtra State, Pune. The said Writ Petition No.4044 of 2009 preferred by Sports Authority was dismissed by an order dt.11.12.09. Against the said order, Sports Authority preferred Special Leave Petition no.9744/2010/2010 in the Apex Court. The Apex Court by its order dt.4.2.11 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 8. In a similar way, the Writ Petition preferred by the Director Sports and Government of Maharashtra being Writ Petition No.3519 of 2005 was dismissed by this court (Coram: Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J.) by order dated 1.9.05. Against the said order, the Sports department preferred Special Leave Petition No.11886-11887/2009. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 18.9.09. The facts in those previous writ petitions are identical as in the present group of writ 5 group petitions. 9. Considering the order passed by this High Court as well as the Apex Court, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint preferred by respondents directing the petitioners to extend the benefits of permanency to the respondent from 1.1.06. 10. The Industrial Court decided all these matters on the basis of previous judgment of this court as well as the order passed by Apex Court. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same and therefore, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.)