Dy. Conservator Of Forest6 ... vs Shri Nilkanth S/O Ramji Kashiwar, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2547 Bom

                                                1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Writ Petition No.  4590 of 2008



Petitioners             :          1)  The Deputy Conservator of Forest,

                                   Wildlife Division, Gondia

                                   2) The Range Forest Officer, Wildlife 

                                   Division (Nagzira), Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara 

                                   versus

Respondent              :          Nilkanth son of Ramji Kashiwar, aged

                                   about 26 years, Occ:  Labour, resident of 

                                   Murpar, post Kosamtondi, Tahsil Arjuni

                                   Sadak, District Gondia



Shri S. B. Bissa, Asst. Govt. Pleader for petitioners 

None appears for respondent

                                   ----------

Writ Petition No. 4714 of 2008

Petitioners : 1) The Deputy Conservator of Forest,

Wildlife Division, Gondia

2) The Range Forest Officer, Wildlife

Division (Nagzira), Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara

versus

Respondent : Gunilal Laxman Bisen, resident of

Kodhebarra, Post Sukli, Tahsil Tirora,

District Gondia

Ms Geeta Tiwari, Asst. Govt. Pleader for petitioners

None appears for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 15th May 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for petitioners in

both the petitions. None appears for respondents though served on rule.

2. It is the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader that

the Courts below could not properly appreciate the facts of the case which were

brought on record by the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents'

services were engaged not for performing regular work of the petitioners, but

they were engaged for performing work on special assignment arising from

the Village ECCO Development Scheme which work was temporary in nature

and came to an end automatically on completion of project.

3. However, on going through the impugned order, I find no

substance in the arguments of learned Assistant Government Pleader. Learned

Labour Judge in paragraph 13 in one of the impugned orders, has observed that

the petitioners failed to bring documentary evidence on record regarding

existence of Village ECCO Development Scheme and even though the witnesses

of the petitioners gave oral evidence in that regard, same was not sufficient

when a contention was raised that there was in existence a scheme, the

implementation of which required engagement of temporary labours. The

reasonings given by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court are

neither without any logic nor without any basis and, therefore, the argument

that the facts are not properly appreciated and the approach was perverse,

cannot be accepted.

4. It is also seen from the impugned orders that the back-wages

are denied and which is yet another example of reasonableness of the

approach with which the dispute has been dealt with by the Courts below.

5. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification to

interfere with the impugned orders and both the writ petitions deserve to

be dismissed. Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule is

discharged. No costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi