:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1883 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1883 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1883 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Pune Zilla Parishad (North), Pune ..Petitioner versus Dattu Maruti Nanaware ..Respondent AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Pune Zilla Parishad (North), Pune ..Petitioner versus Tanaji Somnath Vyavhare ..Respondent AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Pune Zilla Parishad (North), Pune ..Petitioner versus Dastagir Rajubhai Mulani ..Respondent AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Pune Zilla Parishad (North), Pune ..Petitioner versus Baban Jayaram Lawate ..Respondent :2: AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1887 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1887 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1887 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Pune Zilla Parishad (North), Pune ..Petitioner versus Gafur Rajubhai Mulani ..Respondent AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Pune Zilla Parishad (North), Pune ..Petitioner versus Gautam Govind Chaindanshive ..Respondent Mr. N. P. Deshpande for the Petitioners in all the Petitions. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of :3: the learned IIIrd Labour Court, Pune, directing reinstatement of the respondents with continuity of service but without back wages. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Judgment and Award of the Labour Court in all the petitions is not in accordance with law since the illegality of the termination of the respondents is not established. 4. A perusal of the Judgment however shows that the services of the respondents were orally terminated some time in June 1989 after the respondents had worked for almost four years. The petitioner had not contradicted the fact of continuous services rendered by the respondents. There is a clear finding that on the date of termination, the respondents had worked for more than 240 days in each case. There is therefore no error of law whatsoever in the finding of the Labour Court that the oral termination amounts to breach of Section 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no merit in the petitions, which are hereby dismissed. :4: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)