1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4633/1996 ------------------------------------------- The State of Maharashtra and another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Mr.Bhikan Abhiman Pawar and another. .... Shri S.K.Kadam,A.G.P. for petitioner. Shri S.K.Shelke,Adv.for R.1. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE :04/11/2009 ORAL ORDER : 1] This Writ Petition challenges the award dated 21/10/1995 passed by learned Judge of the Labour Court,Jalgaon, in Reference I.D.A.No. 22/93. The Labour Court has declared the termination of the 2 respondent no.1 w.e.f. 15/4/1992 as illegal, unjustified and accordingly, it has been quashed and set aside. The Labour Court has further directed reinstatement of respondent no.1 in service with full backwages. 2] The contention of the respondent employee that he has completed 240 days continuous service with the petitioner, has been accepted by the labour Court, by accepting the version of the employee and drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner- employer, as the employer has failed to produce the muster for the year 1987 to 1992 alongwith seniority list, inspite of directions issued by the Court. The labour Court has rejected the contention of the employer that there was abandonment of service by the respondent no.1 w.e.f. 15/4/1992. The labour Court has further held that the respondent no.1 was the workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and there existed an industrial dispute which was to be decided in the proceeding. 3] Shri Kadam, learned A.G.P. has challenged the aforesaid finding on the ground that there was no sanctioned post and the respondent was a daily wager. The finding regarding completion of 240 days by 3 the employee in service, has not been challenged. What has been urged, is that the employee is not entitled to regularisation in service or permanency in service merely because he has completed 240 days continuous service. It is not possible to accept the contentions raised by Shri Kadam. The labour Court has not granted declaration that the respondent employee has acquired permanent status in the employment. The labour Court has also not granted direction to regularise the services of the respondent no.1. What has been held is that, on the undisputed factual position of non compliance of Section 25-F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination of the workman w.e.f. 15/4/1992 has vitiated. It cannot be disputed that in the background of the fact that the employee has completed 240 days continuous service in employment and there is no compliance of Section 25-F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act, the consequences of setting aside the termination order and reinstatement will follow. Hence no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the labour Court. 4] Shri Kadam, learned A.G.P. has relied upon the decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 S.C.1565 State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Suresh Kumar Verma and another for the proposition that the 4 appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the Rules. The termination of daily wager employee due to the end of project employing them, would not result in giving direction to re-engage them in any other work or appoint them against the existing vacancies. The judgment is clearly distinguishable on the ground that the termination in question in the present case has not been effected on the ground that the appointment of the respondent no.1 was in any project and that such project has come to an end. The second judgment relied upon by Shri Kadam, learned A.G.P. is reported in AIR 1996 S.C.1001 State of Rajasthan and others V/s Rameshwar Lal Gahlot. It is on the proposition that the appointment which is for fixed period is not covered by Section 2(oo) (bb) and would not amount to retrenchment from service and hence the provisions of Section 25-F shall not apply. This judgment is also clearly distinguishable as it was not the case of the petitioner employer that the appointment of respondent no.1 was for a fixed period. The said judgment is therefore, of no help to the petitioner. 5] So far as points regarding abandonment of service is concerned, the same is raised by the petitioner employer and I find no evidence 5 placed on record to establish the plea of abandonment from service. The labour Court has held that no show cause notice was issued, no inquiry was held before terminating services on the ground of abandonment of service and hence, the plea was rejected. No fault can be found with the said finding recorded by the labour Court. 6] The finding regarding relationship of the respondent no.1 as workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not challenged. Hence the same needs to be confirmed. 7] In view of above, I do not find any substance in the instant Writ Petition. The same is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] JUDGE umg/wp4633-96