IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2495 OF 1997 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 328 OF 2007 The Executive Engineer, Neera Right Bank Canal, Division Phaltan, Dist. Satara and another. ... Appellant Vs General Secretary, Public Works Department and Irrigation Employees Union, Solapur and others .. Respondents Mr.C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant. Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the respondent No.1. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C.: Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd January, 2007. The workmen had instituted a complaint in regard to the unfair labour practice adopted by the respondents. This complaint was tried by the Industrial Court and made an award dated 7th February, 1997 partially allowing the complaint. Respondents were directed to convert the services of the workers listed in the annexures on regular temporary establishment as envisaged under Kalelkar Award from the date of completion of their five years of service commencing from the date of joining the employment as mentioned therein. This award was challenged in the writ petition which was heard by the learned Single Judge of this court. It has been noticed in the impugned judgment that the muster rolls which were ordered to be proved but not the dues by the respondents for the relevant period and they related to the period when the workman was working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. For non-production of relevant material and on the admission, the learned Single Judge saw no reason in interfering with the award made by the Industrial Court. The argument raised before us is that finding is based on no evidence and furthermore, once the workmen were working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, they were not entitled to the benefits of the Kalelkar Award. This argument is factually incorrect and misconceived in law. The only witness examined on behalf of the Management-employer was one Shri Bhagwat who in his cross-examination stated as under: “In the period from 1976 to 1981 all the 14 complainants have been rendered work in regard to maintainance of the Neera Right Bank Canal. However from the year 1986 there is change in the work assigned to the Complainants, as all these complainants have been assigned work under the E.S.Scheme the nature of their work was maintainance of the trees, planted on the side of the Canal, and in regard to the plantation of the Trees and its maintainance. 2. The above deposition clearly supports the case of the workmen. Admittedly, the muster-rolls were prior to the period when the workmen were working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and not from the date the workmen joined services with the appellants. The Industrial Court even has drawn an adverse inference on the basis of the aforesaid evidence and in view of an unambiguous admission, there was no doubt to come to the conclusion that the workmen were employed from 1976 to 1981 independent of any scheme and were working with the Irrigation Department. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Appeal does not survive and dismissed as such with no order as to costs. 3. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, nothing survives in the civil application No.328 of 2007 and the same is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.