1 W.P.1441.10+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1441 OF 2010 Rajendra S/o Baburao Patil ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, and another ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1442 OF 2010 Rajendra S/o Nimba Patil ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, and another ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1443 OF 2010 Bhagwat Sitaram Patil ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, and another ...RESPONDENTS. Shri.P.R.Adkine, Advocate for petitioners Shri.S.B.Pulkundwar,AGP for Respondents. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2 W.P.1441.10+2 2. All these three petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment, at the admission stage. 3. These Writ Petitions are filed against the Judgments and orders passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Dhule, in Revision Application ULP NO. 08 of 2007. It seems that, the respondents herein had filed this Revision ULP NO. 08 of 2007 against the Judgments and orders passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Dhule, in three complaints, namely, Complaint ULP Nos. 11 of 1993, 12 of 1993 and 31 of 1993. The learned Member, Industrial Court, by allowing the Revision Application dismissed the above mentioned complaints. 4. The petitioners herein were the complainants. They stated in their complaints that, they were working with respondent-Executive Engineer,Public Works Department, Dhule, Division Dhule, as Daily wages worker, since 1985 onwards. In February,1987 their services were terminated, such termination was oral. They made complaints alleging unfair labour practice. They asserted that, since they had put in service of 240 days, in a year prior to their dismissal, respondents could not have terminated their services. So the question before the learned Judge of the trial Court was “whether the petitioners proved that prior to the termination they had put in 240 days of service?” The trial Court recorded evidence of the petitioners on this issue, and held that the petitioners had put in requisite number of days of service and so he allowed the complaints. 5. The learned Member, Industrial Court, however, held that findings of the lower Court was wrong. In para Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 of his 3 W.P.1441.10+2 Judgment, he discussed the evidence and held that petitioners could not prove that during relevant period of one year they did not put in 240 days of services. On the basis of this finding he dismissed the complaints. 6. Mr. Adkine, learned counsel appearing for petitioners urged that, the findings recorded by the Revisional Court were erroneous, because the parties did not lead 'sufficient' evidence on the relevant question of fact. I do not find any merit in this submission. The learned Member, Industrial Court, Dhule discussed the relevant issue properly and has recorded his findings. The findings are on facts and I am not inclined to disturb the same in the writ jurisdiction. It does not appear from the record that the parties were denied opportunity to lead evidence. Petitions should therefore fail. 7. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- [ A.V.NIRGUDE, J.] MTKok