Bombay High Court
Balaji Namdeo Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 9 June, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
3 WP.2586.1995.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2586 OF 1995
Balaji Namdeo Chavan,
Age : 26 yrs, Occ: Nil,
R/o Marshirani Post, Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
V E R S U S
1. The State of Maharashtra.
( Copy to be served on G.P.
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad).
2. Executive Engineer,
Environmental Engineering Works Div.
Latur, Dist. Latur.
3. Deputy Engineer,
Environmental Engineering Works,
sub division, Udgir, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
4. Sudhir Bhanudas Jadhav,
Age : Major, Occu :Service, ( Deleted as per
R/o. C/o. Dy. Environmental Works Div. Additional Registrar's
sub division, Udgir, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Order dated 6-10-95)
5. M. G. Gaikwad,
Age : Major, Occ : Service,
R/o. Water Tank, Ahemadpur,
Tal. Ahemadpur, Dist. Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:50:26 :::
2
3 WP.2586.1995.odt
6. Dipak Mahade,
Age : Major, Occ : Service,
R/o Water Supply, sub Division,
Masjeed Road Osmanabad,
Dist. Osmanabad. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. A. N. Gaddime, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. C. V. Dharurkar, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate h/f Mr. C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for
Respondent No.5
...
ig CORAM : P. R. BORA, J.
DATE : 09th June, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. The Petitioner has filed the present petition taking
exception to the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court at
Latur in Reference IDA No.34 of 1990 on 13 th January, 1995
alongwith other reference applications.
2 Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Labour Aurangabad
had referred the said dispute under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 and
Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the
Labour Court at Aurangabad for adjudication. Several other
references of similar nature were also forwarded for adjudication to
the Labour Court. All these reference applications were commonly
3 WP.2586.1995.odt
heard by the Labour Court and a common judgment was delivered by
the Labour Court.
3 It was the contention of the Petitioner that though he had
continuously worked for more than 240 days with the Respondent, his
services were orally terminated without following the procedure of law.
However, on perusal of the impugned judgment and more particularly
para 29 of the said judgment, it is revealed that the record, which was
produced by the present Petitioner before the Labour Court was
revealing that he had worked on daily wages only for 52 days. Since
the Petitioner had failed in proving the very basic requirement that he
had worked for more than 240 days with the Respondent, the learned
Labour Court did not find any substance in the complaint made by the
Petitioner and that was the reason that the reference application filed
by the Petitioner was rejected by the Labour Court.
4 In the present petition the same ground has been raised
that the procedure as prescribed in law was not followed before
terminating the services of the Petitioner and hence the termination
was bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The contention so
raised is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the Petitioner has
3 WP.2586.1995.odt
failed in bringing on record the evidence that the was in continuous
employment of the Respondents and that in the preceding year he
had continuously worked for more than 240 days. The documents,
which Petitioner himself has produced on record show that he had
worked only for 52 days. As such, no right can be said to have
accrued in favour of the Petitioner. In the circumstances, it does not
appear to me that the learned Labour Court has committed any error
in rejecting the reference application. The writ petition is devoid of
any substance and it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly
dismissed. Rule discharged.
5 Pending civil application stands disposed of.
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ndm
