Bhaskar Mahadev Surve vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 783 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. R.J. Bhat, counsel for the petitioner.

2. Two facts were admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. One, that there is no appointment letter appointing the petitioner as deliveryman by respondent no. 4 namely, M/s. Varun Shipping Company Limited. The other that petitioner had been running courier services in the name of Bhaskar Courier Services. However, his explanation is that at the instance and as per the modus operandi, of respondent No. 4, Varun Shipping Company Limited, the petitioner has been shown running Bhaskar Courier Services.

3. We are not impressed by the explanation of the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that there is no appointment letter appointing petitioner as deliveryman. The petitioner has also been running courier services in the name of Bhaskar Courier Services, though according to the petitioner, it is only shown on paper. If the appropriate Government rejected the application made by the petitioner for making reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the backdrop of facts noticed above, the order of the appropriate Government cannot be faulted. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

4. Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.