Bombay High Court
Prayas Tasar (Reshim) Kosa Kamgar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Panan ... on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 38.WP.348-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2020
( Prayas Tasar (Reshim) Kosa Kamgar Sanghatana, Armori, Thr. Its
Secretary Nepal Shankar Khobragade & Ors.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. P.S. Tidke, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. Nivedita P. Mehta, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 6th DECEMBER, 2021.
Heard Mr. Tidke, learned counsel for the
petitioners who submits, that the impugned order suffers
from the non application of mind to the evidence on
record, which indicates, that though the work was
available continuously throughout the year, the
petitioners have not been considered, and therefore, on
this ground alone, the same is vitiated. He invites my
attention to the cross-examination of the witness No. 1
for the respondents Shri Ganesh Natthubhai Rathod to
support this contention
2. Ms. Mehta, learned AGP for respondent
Nos. 1 & 2, opposes the same and submits, that the work
is of a seasonal nature and not continuously available,
that apart she submits, that there are no permanent
vacancies and even if there were vacancies, they could
2 38.WP.348-2020.odt
only be filled by following the due procedure as
prescribed by law. As and when the advertisement would
be issued, it would be open for the petitioners, if they
comply with the requirement to apply. She also invites
my attention to the cross-examination of the witness
Prashant Govindrao Sonkusare, examined on behalf of
the complainant, before the learned Industrial Court,
Chandrapur, wherein it is clearly admitted, that the
petitioners were not appointed on a permanent post and
were provided work seasonally. She therefore submits,
that the finding rendered by the learned Industrial Court,
Chandrapur, that the petitioners were seasonal workers
cannot be faulted with.
3. A perusal of the cross-examination of the
witness for the respondents would indicate, that there is
no admission as claimed. This witness has clearly stated
that the members of Mahila Kamgar Sanghatana, were
not provided any work for the whole year and were
provided the work as and when available, which was
considering the allegation, that the members of this
Sanghatana, were being allotted work continuously.
Reliance placed upon the admission, that the members of
Wainganga Kamgar Sanghatana were provided work for
the whole year, does not assist the petitioners in any
manner, as there is no obligation upon the respondents,
to provide work to all the Sanghatanas on any pro rata
basis. It is thus apparent, that there is no legal obligation
on any Union or its Members, to have continuous work.
As against this, the witness for the petitioners, namely
3 38.WP.348-2020.odt
Prashant Govindrao Sonkusare, has clearly admitted, that
the petitioners were provided work seasonally, which
would indicate, that the finding rendered by the learned
Industrial Court, Chandrapur, in this regard in para 11 is
based upon the evidence on record. That being the
position, in my considered opinion, that there is no
ground whatsoever to interfere with the impugned
judgment. Moreover, in view of the admission of
Mr. Prashant Govindrao Sonkusare, that the members of
petitioners Union were employed every season and there
was no occasion when they were replaced by new
incumbents. The petition is therefore without any merits
and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
SD. Bhimte
Signed By:SHRIKANT
DAMODHAR BHIMTE
Signing Date:07.12.2021 18:50
