Aniruddha Vithoba Motghare vs Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3073 Bom

                                            1                                           wp4147.14




                                                                                     
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                             
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.4147 OF 2014




                                                            
     Aniruddha Vithoba Motghare, 
     Aged about 32 years, Occupation - Nil,
     R/o Karanji, Post - Navargaonkala, 




                                               
     Tahsil - Amgaon, District - Gondia.                              ....       PETITIONER

      
                             
                         VERSUS
                            
     1) Sarpanch/Secretary, 
         Gram-Panchayat, Karanji, Post -
         Navargaonkala, Tahsil - Amgaon, 
         District - Gondia.
      


     2) Block Development Officer, 
   



         Panchayat Samiti, Amgaon, 
         Tahsil - Amgaon, District - Gondia.                          ....       RESPONDENTS


     ______________________________________________________________





                Shri B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for the petitioner, 
              Shri A.M. Gedam, Advocate for the respondent No.1,
              Shri A.A. Parihar, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
      ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 21 JUNE, 2016 st

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for the petitioner-

employee, Shri A.M. Gedam, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and

Shri A.A. Parihar, Advocate for the respondent No.2-employer.

2 wp4147.14

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The employee has challenged the award passed by the

Labour Court answering the reference against him and rejecting his

claim for reinstatement with consequential reliefs.

4.

The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings, the

documents and after assessing the evidence on record has concluded

that the employee has failed to establish that he has worked for 240

days in the year preceding his termination.

5. The employee has not been able to show that the findings

recorded by the Labour Court are perverse or not in consonance with

the material on record.

6. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned Award.

The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear

their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar