IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1440 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Vs. Shri G.R. Gaikwad .. Respondent Mr. A.P. Vanarse, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant- State. Mr. M.B. Gawade for respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11th July, 2007 in Writ Petition No.1440 of 2007. The learned Single Judge while affirming the findings recorded by the Labour Court came to the conclusion that no interference is called for. The challenge by the appellant is primarily based upon two factors, firstly, that the workmen had not completed 240 days in previous year and secondly, he was not appointed on regular basis. The counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No.14 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.4141 of 2006 decided on 31st July, 2008 to say that the person who has not been regularly appointed and has not worked for 240 days is not entitled to claim permanency. As far as principle of law is concerned, the view taken by the Division Bench can hardly be questioned. The learned counsel cannot rely on the Division Bench Judgment because in that case, no regular appointments had been made. 2. In the present case, we are primarily concerned with the evidence led by the parties and the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nashik in his order dated 30th April, 2005 specifically referred to Exhibit U-14 which was the appointment letter issued in favour of the respondent. The letter of appointment stated that he was appointed on regular basis as a project affected person. In addition to this, in para 9 of the judgment, the Labour Court specifically recorded the finding based on evidence that the workmen had worked for 240 days and case put forward by the department was not worthy of reliance. These are the findings of fact duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. We see no reason to interfere. Dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.