( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 1997 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioners 2. Deputy Director of Social Forest Division, Beed. Versus Shri Manohar Yadavrao Shejal .. Respondent C/o. Trade Union Centre, Bashirganj, Beed. Shri S.P. Dound, A.G.P. for the petitioners. Shri Parag Shahane h/f. Shri Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 23.07.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard Shri S.P. Dound, A.G.P. for the petitioners and Shri Parag Shahane h/f. Shri Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for sole respondent. ( 2 ) 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Reference IDA No.7/88 dated 30.10.1996. The respondent claimed that he started working as a labourer with the petitioners from 08.10.1982. On 10.12.1982 he was taken up as a Gardner. Thereafter, he worked from 11.10.1985 to 11.01.1986 as a Peon. From 12.09.1986 he was removed from work.According to the respondent, his termination was illegal and invalid and he was entitled for reinstatement with back wages etc. The Labour Court after considering the defence taken by the present petitioners/ori. respondents, ultimately passed order that present respondent should be taken in the post of Gardner preferentially. However, it is made clear that he was not entitled to continuity of service or back wages. Considering the reasons given by the Labour Court and even considering the ratio laid down in case of the Secretary,State of Karnataka V/s.Umadevi and Ors.,2006(4) S.C.C.1 and also the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, in my opinion, there is no error in the order passed. The respondent who worked as Gardner and retrenched, has right to be considered for the post of Gardner whenever ( 3 ) occasion arises. In case, such appointment is to be made on regular post, it can not be disputed that the respondent will have to compete with others and the procedure as laid down under law and rules will have to be followed. 3. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/wp100.97