1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6103 OF 2008. Shahurao Vithal Bhosale, Age 38 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Laxminagar, Gunjalwadi Road, Taluka Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ghulewadi, Sangamner, Taluka Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. 2. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Ahmednagar, Nagar-Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (Local Level) Division, Nagar Aurangabad Road,Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. District Rehabilitation Officer and Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist.Ahmednagar ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.V.Barde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 2 4. Mr.P.R.Tandale, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.01.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This is second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of both the sides. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner came out with a case before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar that he was employed as male Majdoor on establishment of the Respondent No.1. He worked as such between 1991-92 for more than 240 days continuously and was entitled to regularisation of the services. The Respondents, however, indulged in Unfair Labour Practices by appointing junior labours and denying continuation of service to him. He, therefore, sought employment for the reason that he was a Project Affected person of Scheduled Caste and was eligible for the appointment. His contention was that he was entitled to seek 3 employment in accordance with instructions enumerated in Government Resolution dated 21.1.1980. His earlier Writ Petition (W.P.No. 2699/2006) was heard by the Division Bench and was decided by judgment dated 13.8.2007. The Division Bench directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint (ULP) No.69/2000 within a period of three (3) months. Thereafter, the complaint proceedings were decided by the Industrial Court. The learned Member of the Industrial Court held that the petitioner failed to establish his allegation that he had worked continuously for 240 days and was appointed as a Project Affected person. The Industrial Court held that he had worked only for 56 days between 1991-92 as a casual labour on daily wages. The Industrial Court further noticed that since 1992 till 2000 he had not made any attempt to seek employment under the special scheme meant for giving helping hand to the Project Affected persons. Consequently, it was held that no unfair labour practice was adopted by the Respondents. The complaint application of the petitioner was, therefore, dismissed. 4 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 4. It is important to notice that there was no tangible evidence produced by the petitioner to prove the allegation that for more than 240 days continuously the petitioner had worked even as a casual labour on daily wages. It was not his case before the Industrial Court that he had been employed under a special scheme for the reason that he was treated as a project affected person. It is true that he asserted that he was entitled to get employment as a Project affected person and being member of Scheduled Caste. The question is whether his initial employment itself was as a Project Affected person with a view to give him benefit of the Government Resolution referred to by him. His mere appointment on daily wages for few days will not make him eligible to seek continuation in service. His contention that he was appointed as male Majdoor is also not duly proved. He was not appointed on any post. He did not produce any appointment letter. 5 5. Faced with above difficulty, Mr.Barde, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Industrial Court committed patent error while dismissing the complaint application because there was no issue framed as regards the employer -employee relationship between the parties. He would submit that without there being any issue as regards appointment of the petitioner as Project Affected person, he was not expected to adduce necessary evidence in this behalf, and, therefore, findings of the Industrial Court are unsustainable. He contended that the petitioner duly proved his claim, yet, the complaint proceedings are wrongly terminated by the Industrial Court. 6. What appears from the finding of facts, rendered by the Industrial Court, is that between 1992 till the year 2000 there was absolutely no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The petitioner did not put forth the so- called claim for employment on the basis of his eligibility as a Project Affected person. It is 6 explicit that he also did not fulfil the requirement of continuous service for 240 days. Though it was found that he is Project affected person, yet, he did not apply for regular employment as a Project Affected person nor sought accommodation in any department of the Government where the vacancies were available. The absence of issue by itself can not be a ground to upset the findings of the Industrial Court. It is pertinent to note that the parties were well aware about nature of the controversy. The Industrial Court framed particular issue No. 1-A as below : "1-A. Whether the answering Respondent committed unfair labour practice by not providing employment to the complainant though he is Project Affected person.?" Needless to say, the relevant aspect was considered by the Industrial Court though specific issue was not framed as regards employer-employee relationship, particularly, 7 with reference to appointment of the petitioner as a Project Affected person for the relevant period 1991-92. The petitioner examined two (2) witnesses in support of his complaint application. He was aware of the requirement of the law in respect of eligibility as a Project Affected person. There was no prejudice caused to him due to absence of a specific issue. As stated before, he did not produce any appointment letter nor the employment was on a particular post available with the Respondent No.1. Considering these aspects, the findings of facts rendered by the Industrial Court can not be disturbed. No perversity is noticed from the impugned judgment. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is unacceptable. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp610308