1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3772 OF 2008. The State of Maharashtra and another ... Petitioners. Versus Kadar Mohiuddin Shaikh. ... Respondent. ... Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the petitioners. Mr.P.L.Shahane, and Mr.Parag Shahane, advocates for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 12.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The Respondent was working as daily wage labour. He filed proceedings U/s 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 2 (for short MRTU and PULP Act) against order of termination. The Labour Court duly considered his application/complaint (ULP) No.221/1992 and after hearing both the sides directed his reinstatement. The Labour Court held that the Respondent worked for more than 240 days continuously during the preceding year, he could not have been terminated abruptly without following due procedure. The contention of the petitioner was that the Respondent did not work continuously for 240 days. He was working in different Departments on different schemes and, therefore, there was continuity of the work as such. The contentions of the petitioners were repelled by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. The Revision Application (ULP) No.67/2005 came to be dismissed vide impugned order rendered by the Member,Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. 3. Mr.Tele, learned A.G.P. would submit that the Respondent was not entitled to seek relief inasmuch as he did not continuously work with the petitioners. He would submit further that regularisation of the Respondent is 3 impermissible. He seeks to rely observations in "State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Ravinder Singh" 2009 AIR SCW 452. The Apex Court in the given case held that a daily rated worker was not entitled to seek regularisation of the service. Mr.Shahane, would, however, submit that the Respondent has not claimed regularisation of the service and had only challenged the illegal termination. He would rely on observations in "State of Punjab Vs. Bahadur Singh and others" 2009 ALL SCR 299. The Apex Court, in the given case held that appointment in work charge establishment is permissible in law and, therefore, regularisation of the services after long period would not proper. The Apex Court clarified that there is distinction between "irregularity" and "illegality". The "irregularity" can be cured but not the "illegality." A Single Bench of this Court took survey of catena of case law in "Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Secondary Education, Nagpur and another Vs. Mohd. Naim S/o Abdul Rahim" 2009 (1) Mh.L.J.553. The leaned Single Judge held that termination of 4 services of the employees engaged on daily wages, in breach of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act could be challenged, where the employees junior to them are continued in service. The contention of learned A.G.P. is that though a notice was served on the Respondent, yet, he failed to join the duty. If he remains absent then due to absentism, his services can be terminated. Considering the concurrent findings of the Courts below and having regard to the fact that the termination is held as illegal, I find it difficult to interfere with the findings of facts. It is well settled that writ petition would not lie in respect of the disputed facts. The disputed facts herein is whether the Respondent worked continuously for 240 days or not. The findings of both the Courts on such a fact need not be gone into in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction available to this Court. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed in limine. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp377208