The Dy.Conservator Of Forests ... vs Daulat Yashwant Kannake And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3685 Bom

                                                                        (1)                                                                903.LPA.7.2014

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                                        LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2014
                                                        IN
                                         WRIT PETITION NO.1658 OF 2000 (D)
                                      The Dy. Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Allapalli
                                                             Vs.
                                     Daulat Yashwant Kannake through LRs. and another
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                   Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Shri N. R. Patil, AGP for appellant.



                                                                       CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                                               AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 26/02/2021

1. Heard Shri Patil, learned AGP for the

appellant. Nobody is present for the respondents.

2. Perused the impugned judgment dated

29.09.2010.

3. It is seen that there are several material facts

which have been admitted by the appellant and these

admitted facts have clinched the issue in favour of the

respondents. It is not in dispute that the appellant had

given permanency to deceased Daulat Kannake

(2) 903.LPA.7.2014

(respondent nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased

employee), on the post of Watchman and later on, the

appellant found that this status conferred upon the

deceased Daulat was due to inadvertence on his part.

However, it was not shown by the appellant that

deceased Daulat did not work continuously for a period

of 240 days. The Industrial Court had found, upon

consideration of the evidence of the witnesses, that the

witnesses clearly admitted that action taken against

deceased Daulat was without due verification of records

by them. It is also seen that no evidence was brought on

record by the appellant to discharge the burden that

deceased Daulat did not work continuously for a period

of 240 days.

4. Besides, the termination was effected

without giving any notice and this is also an established

fact. These facts enable us to not notice any error of fact

and law in the impugned judgment and also impel us to

keep ourselves away from interfering with the impugned

judgment.

(3) 903.LPA.7.2014

5. We find no merit in the appeal, the appeal stands

dismissed.

No costs.

                                   JUDGE                        JUDGE


     Sarkate