1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3541 OF 2009 Narayan s/o Dayaram Nerkar .. PETITIONER VERSUS Forest Officer (Conservator) .. RESPONDENT Mr. V.Y. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Reference made by the employee in respect of termination of his services has been dismissed by the labour court on 19-3-2008. It is the contention of the petitioner / employee that he was serving the Social Forestry Department as plantation worker since 1991 and he was in continued in employment for number of years. However, services of the petitioner came to be terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Act. 2 Contentions raised by the petitioner / employee are controverted by 2 the employer by filing say. According to the employer, the petitioner was employed as a casual worker and he was provided with the work whenever available. Moreover, the nature of employment is not permanent and the scheme under which the petitioner was provided employment was a restricted tenure scheme and it was continued for a period of five years. On completion of period provided for continuation of the scheme, the employee is not entitled to claim continuation. It has also been contended by the employer that after completion of the period prescribed for continuation of the scheme, the employee was provided employment at different site. However, the employee refused to accept the work assigned. As such, it is contended that the employee is not entitled to make grievance in respect of termination of his services. The employer has also controverted that the services of the employee / petitioner have been dispensed with by issuing oral orders. 3 Considering the rival contentions raised by the parties, the learned Judge of the labour court turned down the reference by order dt.19-3-2008. I have heard arguments advanced by respective counsel. It has been observed by the labour court that the scheme under which the employee was provided work was for a duration of five years. After completion of the 3 scheme, the employee was provided work at Garkheda, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. However, the employee refused to perform the work provided to him. It is also observed by learned Judge of the labour court that the employee was appointed under the employment guarantee scheme and as such he is not entitled to claim permanent employment. It has also been observed by the labour court that the contention raised by the employee that his services have been dispensed with by issuing oral orders has not been substantiated by him. Considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the view adopted by the labour court is reasonable and proper. No interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp3541.09.odt