(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9776 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10455 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10609 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 9776 OF 2010 Supdu s/o. Tukaram Patil, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Khiroda, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Chief Engineer, Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, Jalgaon Irrigation Project, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 3. The Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project Division, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 4. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, More Dam, Sub Division, Hingona, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 10455 OF 2010 Shankar s/o. Popat Nimbalkar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Sadguru Nagar, M.I.D.C. Area, Back side of Sagar Shoppe, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Chief Engineer, Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, Jalgaon Irrigation Project, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 3. The Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project Division, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 4. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, More Dam, Sub Division, Hingona, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) WRIT PETITION NO. 10609 OF 2010 Chandulal s/o. Ukhardu Patil, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Kalmoda, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Chief Engineer, Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, Jalgaon Irrigation Project, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 3. The Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project Division, Jalgaon, Taluka and District : Jalgaon. 4. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, More Dam, Sub Division, Hingona, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ........................ Mr. Vijay Y. Patil, Advocate, for petitioners in all three petitions. Mr. D.R. Shelke, Advocate, with Mr. Amol Shinde, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 4 in all three petitions. ........................ (4) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.Y. Patil, for the petitioners, and Adv. Mr. D.R. Shelke with Adv. Mr. Amol Shinde, for the respondents. 2. Adv. Mr. V.Y. Patil contends that there were some documents in the shape of certificates issued by the competent officers of the respondent / employer showing the duration of service put in by the petitioners, as also, the fact that they were forwarded for necessary training and then, a proposal was sent for their absorption. According to him, in the face of these documents, application for directing respondent / employer to produce documents was also filed and hence non-production of documents ought to have resulted in drawing of adverse inference. With respect to finding regarding completion of 240 days, he has relied upon (i) judgment of Hon. Apex Court reported at 2006 AIR (SC) 355, in the case of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asst. Executive Engineer, (ii) judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2006(3) Mh.L.J. 586, in the case of Z.F. Steering Gears (India) Vs. Ramchandra S. Tapkir, and (iii) (5) judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2008(2) Mh.L.J. 198, in the case of Kamlakar s/o. Mahadeo Garad Vs. Joint Director (Sugar), Nagpur Region, and another, to substantiate his contentions. According to him, in this situation, only delay in filing reference proceedings could not have been a valid ground for denial of relief. 3. Adv. Mr. D.R. Shelke, with Adv. Mr. Amol Shinde, for the respodents, are supporting the impugned orders. 4. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that mere completion of 240 days, in such circumstances, was not a decisive fact. It is not in dispute that conciliation machinery has been approached almost after 16 years and in this background, reference court has found that the said delay has not been explained satisfactorily. The finding is not demonstrated to be either erroneous or perverse. 5. Adv. Mr. V.Y. Patil, for the petitioners, has attempted to urge that poor persons are out of employment. They may be wandering here and there and they may not get proper legal advice. Though effort of Adv. Patil can be appreciated, in the absence of necessary pleadings before Labour Court, the same cannot be accepted as valid excuse. (6) 6. As I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, the petitions are dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9776etc