1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3598/2008 (Govind Ramratan Samundre @ Munna & others VERSUS Municipal Council, Saoner thro. its C.E.O.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri J.L. Bhoot, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.G. Charde, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 01.01.2008 in Complaint (ULP) No.225/2004, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to re-employment in view of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and hence, it cannot be said that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 2 Labour Practices Act. The Industrial Court held that there was no evidence produced by the petitioner on record to show that the respondent was deliberately not affording re-employment to the petitioner, though the post of Sweeper was vacant. I have perused the deposition of the petitioner. The petitioner has not stated in his evidence that the respondent had employed certain other persons as Sweepers and had not considered the claim of the petitioner for re-employment. The Industrial Court weighed the evidence tendered by the petitioner with the evidence tendered by the respondent to hold that there was no post vacant at the relevant time and the witness of the respondent had clearly stated in his evidence that as and when vacancy arises, the claim of the petitioner will be sympathetically considered. No fault can be found with the impugned order dated 01.01.2008. Since the petitioner had not made out a case for re-employment under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner's complaint was rightly dismissed. 3 The writ petition is also dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE