Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thru. Secty. & 3 Ors vs Ishwar Dewaji Mandape on 23 May, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
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.
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
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
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
