WP/5940/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5940 OF 2010 The Chief Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Namdev Pandurang Roopnar ..Respondent Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the Petitioners. Mr. K.S. Bapat i/b. Mr. Avinash Fatangare for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 24 TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 18th December, 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Solapur in Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 1995 granting the respondent reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages. The Labour Court has concluded that the petitioners have indulged in unfair labour practices by terminating services of the respondent. The order WP/5940/2010 2 of the Labour Court has been confirmed by the Industrial Court, Solapur by its order dated 15th December, 2009 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No.3 of 2003 filed by the petitioners. Both these orders have been challenged in this Writ Petition. 2. The main contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners was that the Labour Court has not considered the effect of the appointment orders which were issued to the respondent, in asmuch as those orders were issued under the powers vested in the Corporation to make such appointments under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (Contract Service) Rules, 1963, where according to the learned Advocate appointments could be made only for six months and not more. This contention has not been raised either in the written statement filed before the Industrial Court or before this Court in the Writ Petition. WP/5940/2010 3 3. Assuming such appointments could be made only for six months at a time by the petitioners due to the powers vested in them under the aforesaid Rules, once it is found that the workman had completed 240 days service, the law must take its course. Both the Courts below have found that while terminating the services of the respondent-workman on completion of 240 days, the petitioners have not paid him retrenchment compensation or notice wages which he was entitled to under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since there was a breach of this provision of law, the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court have held that the petitioners had indulged in unfair labour practices. 4. In my opinion, there is no need to entertain this Writ Petition as there is no perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below. Even assuming that the order of the Labour Court is not well WP/5940/2010 4 written, it does not mean that it is perverse as sought to be made out by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. 5. The Writ Petition is rejected.