-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2600 OF 2008 Solapur District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Solapur ... Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents Ms. Rajalakshmy Mohandas, instructed by M/s. ALMT Legal, for the petitioners. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 15, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner-Bank has challenged the order passed by the Second Labour Court, Sholapur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 62 of 1998 which order is confirmed by th Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 6 of 2005. 2. The Petitioner Bank is engaged in the Banking business having 211 branches in Sholapur District. The petitioner appointed the respondent workman on a clear vacancy for a particular period to clear the backlog. Accordingly, the respondent workman was engaged to work as a Casual Daily Wager-Peon at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day. It is the case of the Bank that the respondent workman was not engaged on regular basis and that he did not turn up for work from 15th December, 1997 and instead filed a -2- complaint being Complaint No. 62 of 1998. The Labour Court, however, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the concerned workman had completed 240 days in a preceding 12 calendar month. The Labour Court accordingly passed an order of reinstatement with back wages. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court. The revisional Court came to the conclusion that the impugned order of the Labour Court is required to be interfered with so far as grant of back wages is concerned. Accordingly, revision was partly allowed. The petitioner has challenged that order by filing this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it cannot be said that the management has resorted to any unfair labour practice. It is submitted by her that the concerned workman was not appointed by following the due process of law and, therefore the appointment was irregular. It is submitted by her that the Courts below have committed an error of law in holding that the petitioner has resorted to unfair labour practice. 4. I have gone through the petition as well as the impugned orders. The revisional Court has found that this is not a case in which any back wages should have been granted to the concerned workman. However, on the question of reinstatement it has been found by the revisional Court in -3- para 7 that the concerned workman has served for more than 240 days in a calendar year i.e.1996-97. The finding of fact rendered by the Labour Court is accordingly upheld by the revisional Court. The say of the Bank that the concerned workman had abandoned his services on his own is not found to be correct by the Labour Court as well as by the revisional Court. 5. So far as the order regarding setting aside the order of termination is concerned, in my view, the said finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court and which is confirmed by the Industrial Court is not required to be interfered with in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On appreciation of the evidence it is found that the concerned workman had served for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Simply because he was a daily rated employee it cannot be said that he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have already reinstated the workman in service. In these circumstances and in view of the finding of the Labour Court that the concerned workman has served for more than 240 days in a calendar year and that he had not left the services on his own is not required to be disturbed by this Court. In view of the above, no interference is called for . The petition is accordingly rejected. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.