1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3485/2010 (Babarao Sambhaji Kshirsagar VERSUS Manager, Umarkhed Taluka Shetki Sahakari Ginning & Pressing Factory, Umarkhed) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.E. Moharir, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Deshpande h/f Shri F.T. Mirza, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 21 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 27.02.2009 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the Joint Secretary of a registered Trade Union and since he was seeking to redress the grievance of the employees through the management, the respondent-factory got annoyed with the petitioner and failed to provide work to the petitioner for the season 1985-86. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a Greaseman every year during the cotton season with the Ginning and Pressing Factory and though he was a seasonal worker, he was not provided the work for the season 1985-86 as he was helping the other members of the trade union. The respondent denied the claim of the complainant-petitioner and pleaded that the Industrial Court 2 did not have jurisdiction to try the dispute. It was stated in the reply that the respondent was running a Ginning Factory, which was purely seasonal as the same functioned only during the cotton season, after the cotton was received from the federation. It was denied by the respondents that the complainant was an Office bearer or Joint Secretary of the trade union and that the respondent had threatened the complainant that he would be removed or dismissed from service in case he espoused the cause of the members of the union. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Industrial Court held that the complainant had failed to prove that he was working as a Joint Secretary of the trade union and that he was threatened by the respondent that he would be removed or discharged from the service. The Court held that there was nothing on record to prove that the respondent did not permit the petitioner to work as a Greaseman during the season in the year 1985-86. The Court held that the petitioner was unsuccessful in proving that the respondent had violated the provisions of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and had further failed to prove that the respondent had retrenched him and gave job/work to persons, who were junior to the petitioner. The Industrial Court held that there was nothing wrong in the action of the respondent in relieving the petitioner from the seasonal job during the season 1985-86. The Industrial Court rightly held that the petitioner himself had pleaded that he was working as a seasonal employee and not providing work to such an employee during a particular season would not amount to retrenchment. 3 The findings recorded by the Industrial Court on the issue involved in the complaint are pure findings of facts, which cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE