Shri Bharat S/O Kothiram Dorle vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tanga ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3716 Bom

                                                  1



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                       
                                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                               
    Writ Petition No.  5970  of 2014




                                                              
    Petitioner                  :      Bharat son of Kothiram Dorle, aged about

                                       56 years, Occ: Nil,  resident of Dongargaon,




                                                
                                       Tahsil Mohadi, District Bhandara
                                     igversus

    Respondents                 :      1)     Sub-Divisional Officer, Tanga Dam Sub-

Division, Tumsar, District Bhandara

2) Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Division, Bhandara

Ms Bhavana M. Kasare, Advocate for petitioner

Shri A. D. Sonak, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents

Coram : Z. A. Haq, J

Dated : 11th h July, 2016

Oral Judgment

1. Heard Ms Bhavna Kasare, Advocate for petitioner-employee and

Shri A. D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents-employer.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner-employee has approached this Court against the

order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing his revision and maintaining

the order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court had dismissed the

complaint filed by the petitioner-employee.

The Labour Court, after assessing the documentary evidence on

record, has found that the petitioner has worked for five days in 1984; has

not worked in 1985; has worked for seventeen days in 1986; has not worked

in 1987 and 1988; has worked for 13 days in 1989; has not worked in 1990;

has worked for nineteen days in 1991; has worked for twenty-four days in

1992; has worked for ten days in 1993; has worked for sixteen days in 1994;

has worked for eleven days in 1995; has not worked in 1996 and 1997; has

worked for seven days in 1998 and has worked for five days in 1999. The

Industrial Court has concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour

Court.

4. The other ground raised by the employee before the Labour

Court is that when the services of employee were terminated, juniors to him

were retained and, therefore, the termination was in violation of the

provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Both the subordinate Courts have concurrently recorded that

the employee has failed to establish that juniors to him were retained.

5. The orders passed by the subordinate Courts are based on

proper appreciation of evidence on record. Learned Advocate for the

petitioner-employee has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity

in the impugned orders. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned

orders. Hence, petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, parties to bear

their own costs.

Z. A. HAQ, J

joshi