1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4606 OF 2009 (Amravati Municipal Corporation vs. Dhiraj M. Yadav) and WRIT PETITION NO. 5007 OF 2009 (Amravati Municipal Corporation vs. Shri Anil G. Shriramwar) 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. JULY 01, 2010. Heard Shri Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the respondent. The contention of Shri Pathan, learned counsel is, the respective respondents in the petitions, worked hardly for one year i.e. for slightly over 240 days and as there is no finding that juniors were retained in service, grant of relief of reinstatement with continuity is unwarranted. He places reliance upon the judgment delivered by me in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Mohd. Naim s/o Abdul Rahim, reported at 2009 (1) Mh. L.J. 553, to argue that as recruitment of respective respondents was not in accordance with law, they have no right to post and hence at the most they are entitled to compensation but relief of reinstatement with continuity could not have been granted to them. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel, on the 2 other hand, relies upon the recent judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported at (2010) 2 SCC 543, to urge that the Hon'ble Apex Court has in similar circumstances maintained relief of reinstatement as violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been proved. He further points out that in present matter, application for production of documents like Muster Roll and Seniority List was made but those documents were not produced. It is apparent that there is no finding by Reference Court that juniors were retained. Completion of 240 days by the respondents is not in dispute. In the judgment in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Mohd. Naim s/o Abdul Rahim, (supra), I have relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported at AIR 2006 SC 1806. The said judgment has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself in Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, reported at (2009) 8 SCC 556, and it has been held that it applies only to public employment and in regularization matters. The violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, are found to be sufficient to sustain grant of relief, by subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of this position, it is apparent that the 3 judgment relied upon by Shri Pathan, learned counsel, cannot be acted upon at this stage. The Reference Court has only granted relief of reinstatement with continuity. The employees were working on daily wages, continuity granted is only to show their entitlement to get work. They are not reinstated on any post and back wages are also declined. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.