1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9368 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Gunda Pandurang Kamble and and ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.P.Vanarase, AGP. For the Petitioner. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This petition is filed by the State Govt. impugning an order passed by the Labour Court, Kolhapur directing the petitioner to reinstate the complainant with continuity of service and 50 per cent back wages with effect from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 11.9.1994. The said order has been confirmed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur vide its judgment and order dated 10.12.2008. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the respondent 2 No.1 was working on daily wages. He contends that Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav has concluded that daily wagers who were appointed without following the prescribed procedure, do not acquire any legal right to claim permanency. On perusal of the written statement, it also appears that it was nowhere stated therein that the original appointment of the petitioner was without following the prescribed procedure. In any case, it cannot be lost sight that this proceeding is under the MRTP & PULP Act. The Apex Court in the recent judgment reported 2009(3) CLR 262 has concluded that the court acting under the MRTP & PULP Act, can grant relief of permanency. It is sought to be argued that the post in which the respondent No.1 was appointed was not a sanctioned post. This aspect of the matter is not pleaded in the written statement and no evidence was led in this regard. It is contended that this was a fact to be proved by respondent No.1. Since there is no pleading 3 regarding the post being not sanctioned and since the question whether the post was sanctioned or not was within the special knowledge of the State Government, there is no force in this contention. Hence, not a fit case to interfere. Petition is therefore, summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)