1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5240 of 2010 1. Smt. Sunita Rajesh Dharmale, Age about 38 years, Occupation – Household work. 2. Aditya s/o Rajesh Dharmale, Age about 13 years, Occupation – Education. 3. Nand s/o Rajesh Dharmale, Age about 9 years, Occupation – Education. R/o Laghu Vetan Colony, Near Congress Nagar, Camp Amravati, Tq. and Distt. Amravati. … Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Amravati University, Amravati. … Respondent Shri P.S. Raut, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.K. Deshpande, J. DATED : 6th April, 2011 Oral Order : 1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 23-3-2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.330 of 1994 filed by the original complainant invoking the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 28 read with 2 Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “the MRTU & PULP Act”). By this complaint, the complainant had sought regularization in service as a Laboratory Attendant. 2. The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the complainant has failed to prove that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. With this finding, the complaint has been dismissed by the Industrial Court. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the original complainant Shri Rajesh Dharmale, who died in the year 2008. According to him, the original complainant had worked from 9-12-1992 to 1-2-1994 and thereafter his services were terminated. By virtue of the interim order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.49 of 1994, the original complainant was continued in service. During the pendency of the said complaint, the complainant filed another complaint before the Industrial Court bearing Complaint (ULP) No.330 of 1994 for regularization in service. During the pendency of the said complaint, the complainant died and hence the complaint was being prosecuted by his legal heirs, who are the petitioners herein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant had completed 240 days of continuous service and on the basis of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders read with Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, he was entitled to be regularized in service. 3 4. The post on which the regularization is claimed is of Laboratory Attendant. The minimum qualification for the said post is HSSC. In the complaint for regularization, the claim was made for continuation of the complainant in service in relaxation of the qualification. The complainant possessed the qualification of SSC and not HSSC. In the background of this factual aspect, the Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the complainant has failed to establish that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Merely because the Labour Court has recorded the finding that the complainant had completed 240 days of continuous service and the compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was necessary, that does not follow that the provisions of Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act are attracted. Hence, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Industrial Court. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Judge. Pdl.