IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2007 Sou. Vatsala Hanmant Yedale .... ......... Petitioner V/s The Civil Surgeon, Chhatrapati Pramil Raje Hospital, Kolhapur & Ors....... ......... Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Office Notes, Office ) Court's or Judge's Orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances ) Court's orders or directions and ) Registrar's orders. ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Mr.S.S.Pakale, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.Vanarse, AGP for respondent No.1. CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. 4.4.2007 PC: An order passed in revision by the Industrial Court quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court is challenged by filing the present writ petition. On termination of service, the respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court contending that the employer/Civil Surgeon has indulged in unfair labour practice in as much as service of the complainant was terminated without 1 complying the provisions of section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act which in turn amounts commission of unfair labour practice under item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act. The Labour Court without scrutinizing the documents placed on record went on to accept the statement of the complainant that she had completed more than 240 days continuous service in the year preceding date of termination and thus proceeded to brand the termination as unfair labour practice. The revisional Court has considered the evidence on record in relation to the period of continuous service rendered by the present petitioner and has held that the petitioner had only put in 219 days of service in the preceding 12 months prior to the date of termination. Having held that the petitioner had only completed 219 days of service the Industrial Court held that there was no question of compliance of provisions of section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently further held that there was no unfair labour practice committed by the employer. Perused the order passed by the Industrial Court. The finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Court 2 does not suffer from any patent illegality and does not warrant any interference under writ jurisdiction. Hence writ petition is summarily dismissed. 4.4.07. 3