1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5346 OF 2002 Babasaheb S/o Dharamnath Garje } Age : 42 Years, Occ. : Nil. } R/o : Gitewadi, Post Chinchondi } (Shiral), Tq. : Pathardi, } .... PETITIONER/ Dist. : Ahmednagar. } (ORI. II PARTY) V E R S U S 1. The Executive Engineer } (E.G.S.), Minor Irrigation } Division No. 2, Phakirwada } (Sinchan Bhavan), Tq. and } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENTS/ 2. The State of Maharashtra } (ORI. I PARTY) Mr. N.G.Garud , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.N.Kendre, A.G.P. for State. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 11/09/2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMNENT : 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Award passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar dated 27/7/2000 in Reference (IDA) No. 119 of 1993. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has rejected Reference (IDA) No. 119 of 1993 holding that the Muster Assistant, who are employees under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, can not be regarded as workman within the scope of the definition of the Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the work which is provided to them does not fulfill the requirement of the term ' Industry ' as defined under section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, there can not be relationship between Zilla Parishad and the Muster Assistant as Employer and Employee. Therefore, the dispute between them would not be industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel submits that if the dispute is not maintainable, then the petitioner may be given opportunity to approach appropriate forum by taking recourse to appropriate provisions. Learned counsel further submitted that the present petitioner was pursuing the remedy of Writ Petition under bonafide impression that 3 the Writ Petition is maintainable and considerable time has been consumed. The Writ Petition is pending since 2002 till date and if the Writ Petition is to be dismissed only on the ground of maintainability, any other appropriate remedy would be hit by law of limitation. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that liberty may be granted with observations that the time consumed in prosecuting this Writ Petition may be taken into consideration while entertaining the proceedings by appropriate forum. 3. The learned A.G.P. appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. On perusal of the impugned Award, it is clear that the Reference is rejected merely on the ground that it is not maintainable. It is admitted position that the present petitioner is working as a Muster Assistant. Therefore, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable and ultimately, Reference was not competent. However, this petition is pending from 2002 and is taken up for final hearing in 2009. Therefore, the time spent in pursuing this petition under bonafide belief that the petitioner is pursuing rightful remedy is required to be taken into consideration while entertaining appropriate proceedings, which would be filed by the present petitioner. It is needless to mention that the case of the present petitioner would be covered under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, this Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate 4 forum . Rule discharged. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of in view of disposal of main Writ Petition. [ S.S.SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP5346.02