1 wp 5454.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5454 OF 2009 Controller of Vehicles, MSEDCL and others .. Petitioners Versus Rangnath S/o Bhanudas Kakde .. Respondent Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : . This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision No. 44/2007 confirming the judgment and order dated 20.06.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in ULP No. 188/1990 directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity of service along with backwages for unemployed period. 2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted 2 wp 5454.09 that, the appointment of the respondent/original complainant was on contractual basis. He was continued in service for more than 240 days, however, he abandoned his service. There is no question of applying provisions of said Act in the facts of this case. The learned counsel further places reliance on the reported case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and submitted that, the respondent who was appointed on contractual basis has no right of reinstatement or any backwages or any continuity in the service. Once the person is appointed on contractual basis, there is no question of following any procedure laid down in the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act or any other Act. Therefore, relying on the grounds taken in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, this writ petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relying on the reasons recorded by both the Courts below would submit that it is admitted position that while terminating the services of the respondent no procedure has been followed as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. The witness who entered into witness box on behalf of petitioner has admitted that the complainant has worked with the respondent from 3 wp 5454.09 25.02.1987 to 05.02.1990 and thereafter the respondent is continued in the service of the petitioner till date. Therefore, the counsel for the respondent would submit that, till the matter was decided by the Labour Court, the respondent was in the service of the petitioner. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he was in the employment till 2003 by virtue of the interim orders passed by the Courts below. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment of the Labour Court, the Labour Court in para 19 has held thus, "the reason is that the respondent's witness Arun Namdeo Gokhale at Exhibit O-3 has admitted that, the complainant worked with the respondents for the period from 25th February 1987 to 05th February, 1990 and he received his salary per month regularly." Relying on this statement the Labour Court held that nothing more is expected from the complainant to prove that he worked for more than 240 days. In view of the admission of the witness of the petitioner before the Labour Court, once it is admitted that the respondent has completed more than 240 days service in a calender year, necessary consequence would follow that the petitioners were 4 wp 5454.09 bound to follow the procedure while terminating the services of the respondent. However, admittedly the petitioners have not followed the procedure as laid down in Industrial Disputes Act U/Sec. 25 of the Act. No one month prior notice or pay in lieu of notice was offered to the respondent. In that view of the matter, the complaint was rightly entertained by the Labour Court and same was allowed. The order of reinstatement with continuity of service with backwages is the reasonable view taken by the Labour Court. The said order of the Labour Court was assailed before the Industrial Court in revision. In the revision also the Industrial Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Therefore, this writ petition is filed challenging the order in the revision. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the petition and documents brought on record, I do not thing that this Court is persuaded to held that the finding recorded by Labour Court are perverse or not in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the parties. On the contrary, there is admission of the witness of the petitioners that the respondent has worked continuously for more than 240 days. That apart, admittedly, there is no procedure followed under the Industrial Disputes Act and in that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the judgment and order passed by the Labour 5 wp 5454.09 Court is in consonance with the evidence brought on record. Possible view has been taken. The findings recorded by the Courts below are not perverse. The writ petition is devoid of any merit. Same stands dismissed. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/March. 11