1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4046 OF 2009 ( Namdeo P.Wankhade -: versus :- District Suptd. Agriculture Officer and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2009. Heard Shri P.S. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner who is handicaped person was appointed against a clear vacancy in 1986 and he was in service till the impugned order of Industrial Court. He further states that his initial appointment was for certain period or then till duly selected candidate reported for work. He therefore, urges that Labour Court has rightly appreciated the controversy and given relief to him and Industrial Court has overlooked this cardinal aspect. He contends that provisions of Section 2[oo] [bb], are not relevant at all. Learned A.G.P. on the other hand relies upon the findings of the Industrial Court to urge that petitioner was not regularly recruited and all his appointments were for particular time and therefore, 2 he had no right to post. He therefore, states that the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed. I have perused the impugned order of Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has found that the appointment of petitioner was for a specific period and it cannot be treated to be continuous one. It has also found that the provisions of Section 2[oo] [bb] of the Industrial Disputes Act, were therefore, clearly applicable. Finding that he did not complete continuous service of 240 days in preceding year of termination, is not shown to be either erroneous or perverse. As the petitioner was not regularly selected to fill in the vacancy and he had no right to post, it is clear that the relief of reinstatement given by the Labour Court is rightly held to be unsustainable. I therefore, find that no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, if the petitioner has got any other right to seek employment, the same is kept open and petitioner can approach appropriate authority/forum for that purpose. JUDGE Rgd.