1 W.P.11622.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11622 OF 2010 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Moshi S/o Bhaurao Lakhe ...RESPONDENT ... Mr.P.B.Patil,Advocate for petitioner. Mr.Ashok R.Tapse,Advocate holding for Mr. Prashant D.Surywanshi,Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.02.2010, passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna, in Complaint(ULP) NO.120 of 2008. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner invited my attention to grounds taken in the petition, which are as follows: I] The impugned judgment and award passed by Ld. Member of industrial court is basically illegal vide or 2 W.P.11622.10 initio and gains the principles of natural justice and equity and against the record. II] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that the respondent was working on honorarium temporarily and was not appointed on regular and sanctioned post. III] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that even the respondent has completed more than 240 days in a year on honorarium does not entitled him to seek continuity in service. IV] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that the petitioner institution is not industry as per the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. V] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that the complainant has into mentioned specifically in his complaint that, the petitioner is a Industry. VI] The impugned order passed Ld. 3 W.P.11622.10 Industrial Court is without jurisdiction so it not maintainable. VII] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that the petitioner is not engaged in unfair labour practice. VIII] The Ld. Industrial Court without going into merits of case came to wrong conclusion and passed the impugned order. IX] The Ld. Industrial Court ought to have insisted the respondent to bring the documentary proof from the petitioner in support of his contention. X] The learned Industrial Court failed to consider that the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act and M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act are into applicable in the case of respondent. XI] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that the respondent is not entitle for permanency in 4 W.P.11622.10 service, no proper finding were recorded by the Ld. Industrial Court while passing the impugned order. XII] No proper reasoning was given by the Ld. Industrial Court while passing the impugned order. XIII] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that backdoor entries are nor permissible in the Eye of Law in permanency and the Apex Court has deprecated this practice. XIV] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that the post on which the respondent is working is a permanent and sanctioned post. XV] The Ld. Industrial Court failed to consider that there was no work load on petitioner for accummoding the respondent for the post of parichar.” 3. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for allowing this Writ Petition. 5 W.P.11622.10 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that since the matter was dismissed in default all the papers are returned to the respondent, therefore, he is not able to argue the matter. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the grounds raised in the petition. It is admitted position that in pursuant to the notice issued by the Industrial Court, Jalna, Advocate was engaged by the petitioner. It is also admitted position that no written statement was filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Court, as a result there was no contest by the petitioner, so impugned order was passed by the Industrial Court. In my opinion no interference is called for, in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK 6 W.P.11622.10