WP/268/2011 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.268 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Petitioner V/s. Laxman G. Kunchikorve ... Respondent Mr.N.V. Walawalkar with R.A. Malandkar for Petitioner Mr.Prakash Devdas for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 31, 2011 P.C.: 1. The award impugned in the present Petition has been passed by the Industrial Court in Reference (IDA) No.154 of 2007. The Labour Court has directed the Petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and to pay him 50% of the backwages from 13.12.1997 till he resumes service. 2. Three contentions have been raised by Mr.Walawalkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, namely, (i) that the Labour Court has erred in refusing to accept the contention of the Corporation that no enquiry is necessary when an employee overstays his leave in view of the provisions of clause 28(c) of the Municipal Service Regulations; (ii) that the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act as the Municipal Service Regulations were applicable to employees of the Corporation and (iii) that the Tribunal has WP/268/2011 : 2 : committed an error by observing that the workman had completed 240 days of uninterrupted service and, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation to make him permanent. 3. In my view, these submissions are unsustainable. As regards the contention that the Model Standing orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act not being applicable there is a judgment of Chandrachud, J. in Writ Petition No.8711 of 2007 where the learned Judge has held that the workman employed by the Corporation are governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and the Model Standing Orders framed thereunder and not by the Municipal Service Regulations. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error by refusing to accept the contention that the Corporation was vested with the power to automatically terminate the services of an employee on account of overstaying leave by invoking Municipal Service Regulation 28(c). 4. The observations of the Industrial Court with regard to completion of 240 days and permanency will not affect the Corporation in any way as according to Mr.Devdas, appearing for the Respondent workman, he has already been granted permanency. The Respondent has been made permanent, according to the learned advocate in view of the provisions under which a workman employed for three years and continued by the Corporation are deemed to be permanent. 5. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the award. Hence, the petition is rejected.