(1) WP. 452.1993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 452 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra through Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, District Jalgaon. .. PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. Allaudin Abdul At & Post Tamaswadi, Tq.Parolla, Dist Jalgaon 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for petitioner. Mr.A.S. Shelke holding for Mr.S.K. Shelke, advocate for respondent no.1. ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH JULY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and award dated 7.5.1992 rendered by learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Jalgaon in reference (IDA) no. 13 of 1989. By that judgment and order the petitioner was directed to reinstate the (2) WP. 452.1993 respondent no.1 with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent no.1 is that he was employed by the petitioner as a Labour since 1.2.1983. He worked continuously for more than 240 days. He alleged that he acquired status of permanent employee due to continuity of service for more than 240 days. He further alleged that without payment of one month's salary or retrenchment compensation to him, the petitioner terminated his services in illegal manner. He contended that the petitioner had not published seniority list and also had contravened section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. At his instance, reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was made to the Labour Court, Jalgaon. The petitioner asserted that though the respondent no.1 was removed w.e.f. 26.7.1985, yet he was not a permanent employee. The petitioner further contended that the respondent no.1 was a casual labour and was engaged only when work was available. It was further (3) WP. 452.1993 alleged that since the work of the Medium Project Division, on which the respondent no.1 was appointed, had been over, the services of the respondent no.1 came to be terminated. 3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, came to the conclusion that retrenchment of the respondent no.1 was per-se illegal. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held that after continuous working for more than 240 days the respondent no.1 was entitled to seek benefit of permanency. The complaint application was therefore allowed vide the impugned order. 4. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Kurundkar for the petitioner-State. The respondent no.2 was unnecessarily added in the Petition. 5. Now, perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Judge of the Labour Court did not properly appreciate the nature of the work of (4) WP. 452.1993 the respondent no.1 and the manner of his employment. It has come on record that the respondent no.1 was appointed only as a casual labour as and when the work was available. The petitioner examined P.W. Ramesh Bare in order to prove the fact that the work of Bhokarbari in respect of excavation and rock cutting was over. His evidence purports to show that respondent no.1 was engaged as a casual Labour for cutting hard rock. The burden of proof is on the workman to prove that he completed 240 days continuous work and is entitled to claim permanency. The respondent no.1 did not adduce any acceptable evidence to prove that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days. It is well settled that even if a person would work for more than a year without there being regular appointment of such a person, no claim can be put forth for continuation in the service. In "Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors V/s Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1", the Apex Court held that such casual employment would not entitle the workman to claim right of permanency. The learned Judge of the Labour Court considered certain (5) WP. 452.1993 admissions of P.W. Ramesh Bare. He admitted that canal work and the work for removal of huts in slum was yet to be accomplished. It is nobody's case that the respondent no.1 was engaged on the work site of such work pertaining to canal and for removal of huts in slum. 6. The respondent no.1 was only temporary employee. He was not appointed on regular post. There was no permanent vacancy available. The respondent no.1 was not eligible to claim right on any post. The work was no more available. Under the circumstances, the termination of the respondent no.1 could not be faulted with. The impugned order appears to be perverse. Still, however, subsequent development may be noticed. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed on record the copies of the office orders, which show that the respondent no.1 was absorbed. He has been transferred to Narmada Vikas Sub-Division No.1, Taloda. It appears that he is taken on C.R.T. In view of the said development, it is not necessary to elaborately consider the merits of the matter. (6) WP. 452.1993 8. Taking overall view of the matter, Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is partly modified. The respondent no.1 will not be entitled to any back wages or other monetary benefit except from the date of his absorption on C.R.T. and the payment of back wages for a period prior to service as per the Government resolution before he was taken on C.R.T. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] gas/wp452.93