1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5365 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.Alok M.Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The Central Government had referred the Industrial Dispute between the present petitioner and the Respondent before the Presiding Officer, CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, for adjudication with the following schedule : "Whether the action of the Telecom District Manager, Jalgaon in terminating the services of D.R.Wani, is justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to." 3. The authority directed the petitioner to include the name of the workman i.e. Respondent 2 in the list of Casual Mazdoor,who had been conferred with temporary status as per Circular dated 7.6.1990, issued by the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Maharashtra Circle in the appropriate place and to give him employment at par with his juniors enlisted in the said list. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. Heard Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt.Solicitor General for the petitioner, who contends that the Respondent has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days and as such would not be entitled for the benefit awarded to him by the authority. According to the learned counsel, the authority has not considered that the Respondent was absconding Mazdoor and that he had never worked for 240 days continuously. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order. The certificate issued by the SDO, Telegraphs, Jalgaon is produced on record which shows that the Respondent in the year 1979 has worked for a period of more than 240 days. The said aspect has been considered by the authority. Even the 3 list prepared by the Management on 11.1.1988 shows that the period of absence of the workman was already condoned and was deputed to Dhule District and his name was included in the waiting list. 6. The authority has not committed any error by passing the impugned order. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.25.08.2011. asp/office/wp5365.11 4