1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1294 OF 2009 Karbhari Punja Kharat ...Petitioner Versus Superintending Engineer P.W.D. Ahmednagar and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.V. Barde, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 24TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. 2 This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 8.10.2008 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 273 of 1997. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the Kalelkar Settlement has been accepted by the concerned 2 respondents, the petitioner have been completed more than five years service, is entitled for permanency. However, the Industrial Court has given erroneous findings and had rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this matter requires consideration. 4 Learned AGP has invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State as well as the findings recorded by the Member, Industrial Court and has submitted that as a matter of fact, after verification of record, which was produced before the Industrial Court, the Court found that the petitioner has not completed 240 days continuous service in a calender year and therefore, there is no question of completion of five years service and that too 240 days service in each calender year and thus, the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court cannot be faulted with. 5 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents and on perusal of the findings recorded by the Industrial Court and more particularly para 9, it appears that the Industrial Court has considered the case of the petitioner in the light of Kalelkar settlement and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not completed continuous 240 days service in each calender year and ultimately has dismissed the complaint. Therefore, in my considered view, the findings recorded by the Member Industrial Court are in consonance with the record maintained by the respondents and the 3 same cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, in the writ jurisdiction, no interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if any stands vacated. *****