:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1659 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO. 1659 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO. 1659 OF 1998 Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Division, Solapur ..Petitioner versus Bharat Vithal Jarag ..Respondent Mr. S. K. Chinchalikar, AGP, for the Petitioner. Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Solapur, dated 18.9.1997 directing the petitioner to cease from unfair labour practice under items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and confer status and privileges of permanent employee in the post of Majoor from the date of respondent’s completion of five years of service commencing from 3.5.1983 and to pay all monetary benefits with retrospective effect. :2: 3. Mr. Chinchalikar, the learned AGP for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court committed an error in not giving due weight to the effect that the respondent was employed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short "E.G. Scheme") and in any case was transferred at some point to this Scheme. Therefore the work of E.G. Scheme having come to an end, the learned Industrial Court could not have directed making the respondent permanent in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors. [AIR 1992 Supreme Court 789]. 4. Ms. Sarnaik, the learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that the respondent has been directed to be confirmed for having rendered 240 days of service for a period of 5 years according to Kalelkar’s Award and the respondent’s employment during that time had nothing to do with any E.G. Scheme. It must be noted that there are two kinds of employment where the person is employed to work as casual worker on daily wages, it is called E.G.Scheme employment; the other kind of employment is where the workman works under a :3: regular government department; it is called employment in the Plan Scheme. The Industrial Court has in this case found that the respondent’s name was in the seniority list at Exhibit U-13 and the petitioner’s witness clearly stated that no distinction is made between employees engaged in departmental work and under the E.G. Scheme i.e. plan scheme and E.G. Scheme. After having considered the entire evidence, the learned Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that no cogent evidence has been led by the petitioner in support of the contention that the respondent has ever rendered services under the E.G. Scheme and was not an employee of the petitioner. In fact inspite of the Courts having passed an order on 25.3.1996 directing the petitioner to produce all the documents stated in the application at Exhibit 10, no documents were placed on record by the petitioner as stated by the court "for the reason best known to them only". Accordingly, on the basis of the seniority list and the other evidence on record, the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent has rendered services as a majoor i.e. labourer doing the work of preparing and protecting the saplings and is therefore entitled for confirmation as a majoor and :4: not as a Forest Guard. The Industrial Court has also noticed that the respondent was paid bonus on completion of three years on two occasions. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Industrial Court, the petition is therefore dismissed. Rule disposed of. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)