{1} wp170210.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1702 OF 2010 Bhagwan s/o Pandurang Shinde Petitioner Versus 1 The Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jalna & others Respondents Mr.R.K.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Hajare, advocate holding for Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for respondents no.1 & 2. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. For Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 28 th January, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Petitioner is raising exception to the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below. 2 The petitioner-employee presented a Complaint to the Labour Court praying for his reinstatement and for granting benefit of continuity and back wages. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was employee of Respondents No.1 & 2 for a period between 23.05.1990 till 05.07.1994. He was engaged in employment for a period more than 240 days in a calendar year. His services have been dispensed with without issuing any notice, notice pay or without payment of retrenchment compensation. The petitioner-employee, therefore, seeks a direction to the employer to reinstate him in service along with continuity and back wages. {2} wp170210.odt 3 The contentions raised by the petitioner were controverted by Respondent-employer contending that the employee was not engaged, as contended by him, in the employment and that the employee has not completed 240 days’ of service in a calendar year. 4 The learned Judge of the Labour Court considered the rival contentions and was pleased to reject the Complaint. The order passed by the Labour Court was confirmed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application No.8/2005. 5 I have perused the orders passed by both the Courts below. The employee has failed to establish, by leading cogent evidence, that he was engaged for 240 days in any calendar year. Apart from this, the employee has also failed to establish that the junior employees are retained in service by the employer and he, being senior, his services have been dispensed with. The Courts below have adopted a reasonable view of the matter and it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. No interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance. 6 Writ Petition stands dismissed. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp170210