1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6682 OF 2009 Satara Zillka Madhyarti Sahakari Bank & ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Shri. Mahendra Shivaji Bhapkar and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.S.Pakale i/by Kiran Kumar Phakade for the Petitioners. Mr. M.S.Topkar for the Respondent No.1. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 20TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a writ petition filed by the employer bank impugning a judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Satara on 25.6.2009 partly allowing the Complaint (ULP) No. 2/2007 filed by the employee. Industrial Court had pronounced that the respondent has been engaged in unfair labour practices and directed that the workman may be made permanent from 10.1.2007 with 2 all benefits of permanency. It is not in dispute that the workman in question was employed as Peon in 1988. He was terminated on 25.10.1996 but he challenged that order of termination in Labour Court. Labour Court allowed his complaint and reinstatement was granted. The said order was confirmed by the Industrial Court as well as this Court. He was thereafter, reinstated on 2.7.2007. Subsequently he filed complaint claiming benefits of permanency. It was his case that he was employed for a period of 19-years and had worked continuously for 240 days in the previous year. He claimed permanency since 1989 but the permanency was granted since the year 2007. It is sought to be contended that the court ought not to have granted permanency because the workman was not qualified since he had not passed 8th standard which was a prescribed qualification. Advocate appearing for the employer bank however, is unable to show any pre 1988 rule which requires that a Peon should be 8th standard passed. 3 He then contended that the prescribed procedure was not followed. In this respect also, no rules have not been produced. In this view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the employer cannot be accepted. Apex Court now in the case of MSRTC Vs. Caste Tribe Union reported in 2009(3) CLR Page 263 held that in a complaint under MRTP & PULP Act, benefit of permanency can be granted unless posts are not sanctioned posts. On perusing the written statement, it appears that there was no contention that post in which the employee was appointed was not a sanctioned post. In this view of the matter, petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)