Bombay High CourtCAW/2094/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Western Coalfields Ltd., Through Its Sub Area Manager, Sillewara v. The General Secretary, Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Walni Mines, Nagpur

2016-07-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 caw2094.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.W. NO.2094/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3565/2012 Western Coalfields Limited, through its Sub-Ara Manager, Sillewara Mines, Distt. Nagpur ..VS..

The General Secretary, Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Walni Mines, Distt. Nagpur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 5.7.2016.

Heard Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for the applicant - original respondent and Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the non-applicant - original petitioner. This application is filed praying for modification in the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3565/2012 directing that the workman (applicant) shall be entitled to get work as "Badli Worker" as and when he approaches the Management and the Management shall give him work if it is available.

According to the applicant - respondent, post of "Badli Worker" is not in existence on the establishment of the non-applicant petitioner and the post of "General Majdoor" exists on the establishment and, therefore, wherever the

2 caw2094.15 "Badli Worker" occurs in the judgment, it should be substituted by "General Majdoor".

Shri Mehadia, the learned Advocate states that as per entries in the record available with the Management, on 25th February, 1981, i.e. the date of joining the applicant was aged about 25 years and, therefore, now he has surpassed the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years.

Shri Puranik, learned Advocate states that the date of birth of the applicant is 7th November, 1956 and, therefore, he has not surpassed the age of superannuation and the applicant will attain the age of superannuation on 6th November, 2016.

Be that as it may, considering the directions given by this Court and as no purpose would be solved by modifying the order even if the date of birth of the applicant is treated as 7th November, 1956, I see no reason to consider the prayer of the applicant original respondent. The application is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.