Bombay High CourtWP/7232/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Senior Geologist G.S.D.A., Buldhana And Another v. Haridas Tryambak Jadhav And Others

2017-03-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp7232.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7232 OF 2016 (SENIOR GEOLOGIST GSDAE, BULDHANA & ANR....VS.. HARIDAS TRYAMBAK JADHAV & 2 OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Neeraj Patil, A.G.P. for Petitioners.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MARCH 08, 2017.

Heard.

The petitioners/employer have challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court maintaining the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent / employee with continuity of service. The Industrial Court has independently examined the material on record and after appreciating the material on record has summed up its conclusions in paragraph 11 of the order as follows :

"11. Therefore the evidence as come on record is sufficient to hold that the complainant has put in not less than one year continuous services as defined u/s. 25-B of the I.D. Act under the respondents. Admittedly, the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the I.D.Act. In that case, the termination of the services of the complainant can not be said to be legal and the complainant is entitled for the reinstatement. The record shows that the Ld. Labour Court has rightly considered the above legal position and rightly held that the complainant is entitled for reinstatement in the services."

2 wp7232.16 The petitioners have not been able to point out any patent illegality or perversity which necessitates interference by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE RRaut..