1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4086 OF 2009 (Wasudeo P. Phopse vs. The Industrial Court & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 12, 2010. Heard Shri Nemade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 to 5. The contention is, the entire consideration of ULP Complaint by Industrial Court is vitiated as the Industrial Court has not considered the provisions of Rules framed on 19th March 2003 under Article 209 of Constitution of India. The Industrial Court has found that the petitioner did not fulfill the age requirement and, therefore, the grievance as made in ULP complaint was unsustainable. The prayer before the Industrial Court was to direct Respondent – employer to regularize the services and to depute the petitioner for Multi purpose Health Worker Course immediately. Thus, the petitioner was claiming regularization as Field worker. The definition of “Field Worker” as framed in Article 309 of Constitution of India, is that the person must be a regular Group – D employee whose appointment is made by the Department for local 2 spraying under the National Anti-Malaria Programme. It is obvious that the petitioner is not regular Group – D employee and hence the provisions of Rule 2(d) read with Rule 3(a) are not applicable in his case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically stated that the petitioner is relying on Rule 3(a). The other contention is that in earlier round of litigation, this Court has remanded the matter to find out the relevance of age limit in the matter of regularization. The said order is dated 06.10.2008 and it is apparent that this Court then directed that issue to be examined in the light of Circulars dated 30.01.1992 and 09.02.1988. In any case, after rules under Article 309 are framed and those provided for certain age limit, consideration of that age limit by the Industrial Court cannot be said to be erroneous. No case is made out warranting any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.