1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1853 OF 2008 Arvind Baburao Karale ....Petitioner. Versus The Chief Officer, Ahmednagar Municiapl Council, Ahmednagar & others. ....Respondents. Shri. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. The petitioner was employed as a daily rated worker since 1977. He was subsequently appointed on monthly basis in 1985 and was transferred from Octroi Department to Fire Fighting Department as a Bigari. He acquired skill of motor driving and was working as a driver on vacant post. He alleged that he was not given benefit of permanency though he worked more than 180 days and 240 days as a driver. He filed complaint (ULP) No. 303/90 which was allowed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar and he was granted benefit of 2 permanency with all privileges and status w.e.f. 17.7.1995 along with compensation of Rs.5000/-. He, later on, filed application IDA No. 8/01 under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The application came to be dismissed. 3. The Industrial Court granted permanency benefit with prospective effect because it was considered that to make the petitioner permanent since 1985 would place the respondent in precarious financial condition. It was held that there would be extra financial burden on the respondent Municipal Council. The said judgment was never challenged by the petitioner. It is obvious that the petitioner accepted the right of permanency granted w.e.f. 17.7.1995. In this view of the matter, he could not have again reagitated the same demand through the application under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned judgment rendered by the Labour Court does not suffer from arbitrariness or perversity. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held that in view of earlier decision of the Industrial Court, the same issue cannot be reagitated by the petitioner. The view taken by the learned Judge of the Labour Court is legal and proper. No interference is called for. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. ] ssc/wp1853.08