1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9419 OF 2010 Dapoli Nagar Panchayat, Dapoli ... Petitioner v/s Shri Mangesh Shankar Pise & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Sameer N. Patil for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Topkar for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.767 of 2001. By this order the Labour Court has granted the relief claimed in the complaint. It has held that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in short, the MRTU & PULP Act). The petitioner has further been directed to consider the respondent No.1 2 employee as a permanent employee from the date on which he completed 240 days in service. 2. Mr.Patil, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Court has granted relief under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act when there is no grievance made by the petitioner about non- implementation of any award, agreement or settlement. He therefore states that no relief should have been granted under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 3. A perusal of the complaint shows that the contention of the respondent No.1 employee before the Industrial Court was that the petitioner has committed a breach of statutory provisions relating to the service conditions of employees working with it which are in the nature of a settlement or a term of agreement between the parties. Since these statutory provisions have been violated, there was an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 3. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has committed no error in concluding that the respondent No.1 is entitled to permanency from the date he completed 240 days in service. The fact that he was in employment for years together as 3 temporary workman has been accepted by the Industrial Court. It has also accepted the respondent No.1’s case that he has been continued for years together as a temporary employee only with a view to deprive him of the benefits of permanency. Apart from this, the Industrial Court has noted that the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.57 of 2001 had held that the respondent has completed 240 days in service and have, therefore, granted him reinstatement. 4. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Writ petition rejected. ..... 4