1 wp-3637-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 3637 OF 2009 Shri.Madhukar Shreepati Koparde ..Petitioner Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Pratap Patil Counsel for Petitioner Mr.R.D.Rane Counsel for Respondents .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-original complainant and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as daily rated employee in an establishment controlled by the Respondent No.1. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed in the year 1986 and he has placed reliance on Circular dated 1st December, 1995 wherein it was stated that daily rated workers completing five years service upto the year 1991-1992 shall be absorbed in the regular establishment (C.R.T.) 2 wp-3637-09 According to the Petitioner, on account of the said Circular by order dated 15.5.1996 some employees employed in the Respondent No.2 were taken on C.R.T. basis. His name was also in the said list. However, his name came to be deleted. The case of the Petitioner is that he is covered by the said Circular and he ought to have been absorbed as permanent employee and he ought not to have been terminated on 1.10.1996. 3. In order to prove his case, the Petitioner has not produced any documents before the Labour Court to show that he was appointed in the year 1986. It is his case that no appointment order was issued to him in the years 1986, 1987 or even in the year 1988, hence, he could not produce such appointment orders. The Respondent No.1 has disputed that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and according to the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1989. The pleading of the complainant regarding his date of appointment in the complaint as well as in the interim relief application Exh.U-2 are found contradictory. In his examination-in-chief, the petitioner has given different date of his appointment. He has stated that he was in the employment of the Respondent No.1 from 7.3.1983 on daily wages. However, in the cross examination, he has stated that he was in the employment from 1993 is not correct. It is matter of record that the complainant has not adduced any documentary 3 wp-3637-09 evidence to prove exact date of his appointment. It i further pertinent to note that the complainant has further admitted in his cross examination that he has given statement on 24.9.1996 voluntarily. The said statement is filed by the Respondent below list Exh.C-5/2. In the said statement, the complainant has stated that he was appointed as helper on daily wages in the year “1989 ”. Thus, in view of such contradictory evidence of the complainant, it cannot be accepted that he was appointed in the year 1986. If really, the complainant was working since 1986, he could have produced documentary evidence to that effect and if he was not in possession of such documentary evidence, he could have called upon the said documents from the Respondent through the Court but admittedly, he has not done so. The record does not bear out the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed in the year 1986 but on the contrary, it shows that he was appointed in the year 1989. After carefully considering the matter, it is found that the Petitioner has failed to prove that he was in the employment of the Respondent since 1986. In fact, the material on record shows that he was appointed in 1989. In such case, if the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1989, he would not be able to claim benefit of the said Circular as in 1991-1992, he would not have the requisite service of five years. 4. As far as the name of the Petitioner appearing in the list of employees 4 wp-3637-09 covered by the said Circular is concerned, it is clear that the said name of the Petitioner appeared in the list by mistake and the mistake was rectified later on and due to this, the name of the Petitioner came to be deleted from the list. There is no material to show that Petitioner was appointed in 1986. On the other hand, the material including his admission in the cross examination shows that he was appointed in the year 1989. As such, the Petitioner cannot claim benefit of the Circular as on the relevant date, he would not have completed service of requisite period of five years. All these facts have been properly considered by the Courts below, hence, no interference is called for. 5. Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]