J-wp289.08.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.289 OF 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Village Department, Jalsandharan and
Social Forestry Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Director of Social Forestry,
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Pune.
3. Dy. Director of Social Forestry,
Nagpur Division, near Khare Workshop,
Gokulpeth, Nagpur.
4. Plantation Officer,
Social Forestry, Kalmeshwar Range,
Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
Ishwar Dewaji Mandape,
R/o. Gondkhairi, Tah.-Kalmeshwar,
District Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.M. Ekre, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Petitioners.
Shri M.P. Jaiswal, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
rd DATE : 23 MAY, 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 02:59:05 ::: J-wp289.08.odt 2/4
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order date 10 th October, 2006 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.546/2003.
2. I have heard Shri M.M. Ekre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners and Shri M.P. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the record of the case including the impugned order with the assistance of learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the impugned order is illegal and perverse as it does not take into consideration properly the evidence available on record and wrongly holds that the respondent has completed 240 days of service with the Forest Department of the State. He also submits that learned Member of the Industrial Court has failed to consider the fact that the appointment of the respondent in the Forest Department of the State was illegal, as it was made without following any procedure. This has been resisted by the learned ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 02:59:05 ::: J-wp289.08.odt 3/4 counsel for the respondent. He submits that the impugned order is self speaking and explains as to how the Department has failed to prove its case that the respondent did not complete 240 days of service and that the respondent's appointment was made without following any procedure.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent is right when he submits that the learned Member of the Industrial Court in his well reasoned order considered all aspects of the matter including the objections taken now on behalf of the petitioners. It is seen that the Department has failed to produce the record that was in its possession in respect of the employment of the respondent before the Industrial Court and that was the reason why the learned Member accepted the deposition of the respondent as reliable. I do not see any illegality or absence of logic in the finding so recorded in this behalf by the learned Member. Similarly, even on the point of not following of proper procedure in making initial appointment of the respondent, the learned Member has considered the material fact which is that the Department itself did not explain as to what procedure was required to be followed by it while making initial appointment and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Member that there is no substance in the said objection cannot be said to be ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 02:59:05 ::: J-wp289.08.odt 4/4 arbitrary or perverse.
5. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
6. The writ petition stands dismissed.
7. Rule is discharged. No costs.
8. However, it is directed that the benefits of the order impugned in this petition shall be given to the respondent within six months from the date of the order.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 02:59:06 :::