2007wp3142.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3142 OF 2011 Sunil H.Bhetalu ..vs.. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chandur Bazar. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Ku.Sulbha B.Saikhede, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th July, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20/3/2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati by which the complaint filed by the petitioner herein being Complaint ULP No. 160 of 2000 came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner has been working with the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Chandur Bazar, Distt.Amravati as a daily wager for last 11 years or thereabouts. The petitioner along with two others, on the ground that they have completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year, had filed Complaint ULP No.160 of 2000 for seeking regularization of their services by invoking Item Nos.6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The case of the complainants was that though they have been working for more than 11 years or 2007wp3142.11.odt 2 thereabouts, they have not been paid as per the regular employees. The complainants had, therefore, sought the regularization of their services with the attendant benefits. 3. The respondent – APMC filed its written statement and denied that the complainants were in service continuously for nine years and further denied that they have put in 240 days of service in the preceding year. The respondent – APMC denied that the work available is of a permanent nature and therefore, contended that the complainants could not be granted the relief sought in the complaint. 4. The complaint was tried by the Industrial Court. Parties led their evidence. The Industrial Court on the basis of the evidence came to a conclusion that since the complainants in Complaint ULP No.160 of 2000 were daily wagers and since they had failed to prove that there were any vacancies available, they could not be regularized. The Industrial Court also held that in the absence of any Scheme for regularization, the relief sought by the complainants could not be granted. The Industrial Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006 II CLR 261 in the matter of State of Karnataka ..vs.. Umadevi. The Industrial Court held that since the daily wagers are not appointed as per the prescribed Rules and Regulations, they were not entitled for permanency and regularization. In my view, considering the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka ..vs.. Umadevi (supra) in the absence of any Scheme for regularization, the complainants are not entitled to the relief sought in the complaint. The A.P.M.C. is a statutory body established under the A.P.M.C. Act and the retinue of its employees is also 2007wp3142.11.odt 3 sanctioned by the State Government. Hence, in the absence of any sanctioned post, the petitioner could not lay his claim for regularization of his services. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the judgment and order of the Industrial Court. No case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute