-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.866 OF 2009 Bhaskar Murlidhar Tidake : Petitioner V/s. The Registrar, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth & Anr. : Respondents ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.829 OF 2009 Dashrat Appa Nalawade & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The Registrar, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of the Industrial Court, Sangli, dated 29.8.2008 in Original Complaints filed by them. The petitioners’ claim for permanency has been denied by the Industrial Court on the basis of the judgement of the -: 2 :- Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case, reported in 2006 II CLR 261. 2. Mr.Mankapure, the learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly submitted that the orders of the Industrial Court cannot be assailed since it follows the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the respondents were not at all entitled to raise an objection to the right of permanency which was conferred on them by the earlier order passed by the same Industrial Court before the High Court remanded it. According to the learned counsel, the Industrial Court had granted right of permanency. However, the respondents had challenged that order before this Court in Writ Petition No.4368 and 4369 of 2005. According to the learned counsel, before this Court, the petitioner therein was the Registrar, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, which accepted the petitioners’ right to permanency as decided by the Industrial Court, but they had only objected to the disturbance of the seniority list and the roster position. This Court had, therefore, remanded the matters to the Industrial Court in order to permit the respondent to make his submission that permanency would disturb the seniority list and the roster position. In short, the contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioners had given up their challenge to -: 3 :- the award of permanency by the Industrial Court and had restricted it to the disturbance of the seniority list. Therefore, they cannot now be allowed to agitate the question of permanency. 3. A perusal of the order of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4368 and 4369 of 2005 does not suggest that the petitioners therein i.e. the Registrar, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, the respondent therein, had not given up the challenge to permanency awarded by the Industrial Court. In fact, the permanency awarded to the petitioners herein was challenged on the ground that its grant by the Industrial Court resulted in disturbance of the seniority list and roster position. There is no doubt, however, that the issue questioned was the grant of permanency itself on the grounds stated earlier. Thus, there is no merit in the submission that the issue of permanency attained finality before this Court in Writ Petition nos.4368 and 4369 of 2005 and it was, therefore, not open for the Industrial Court after remand to grant permanency on the basis of the decision in Uma Devi’s case. 4. Mr.Mankapure, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order of the Industrial Court will prevent the petitioners from being absorbed in due course. -: 4 :- There is no reason for any such apprehension since the order of the Industrial Court is restricted to refusal of permanency and cannot be construed to mean that the petitioners would not be entitled to be absorbed in due course, in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in both these petitions which are hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.