( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2392 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Abdul Moula Tamboli RESPONDENT ..... Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for the petitioners. Mr. P.V. Barde, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ] [DATE : 27th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent was employed as a cook on temporary basis. He had been lateron terminated. The respondent challenged the termination before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the termination was bad in law in as much as the respondent had completed more ( 2 ) than 240 days of service before termination and, therefore, without giving him notice and taking appropriate legal action, his services could not be brought to an end. The findings are confirmed by the Industrial Court while dismissing the revision application (ULP) No. 10/2009. 3. There appears no perversity committed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court while deciding the questions involved in the matter. On perusal of the judgements rendered by both the Courts below, it is amply clear that the petitioners failed to follow due procedure prior to termination of the respondent. The respondent was appointed as cook in beggars’ house which was like a camp for detained beggars, for the purpose of their rehabilitation. The beggars were required to cultivate the agricultural land and the agricultural produce was being utilized for their sustainance. The work was, therefore, available. It was not a seasonal work though the appointment initially could be regarded as temporary. Considering the nature of employment and the proved fact that the respondent completed more than 240 days of ( 3 ) working on the post, the termination could not be termed as valid. No merit is found in the petition. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp2392-2010