State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai And Others v. Dilip Madanlal Moyal

1 wp1783.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1783 OF 2017 (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PWD & OTH...VS..DILIP MADANLAL MOYAL.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M.Kadukar, A.G.P. for Petitioners.

Ms Anjali Joshi, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JANUARY 07, 2019.

Heard.

The employer has challenged the order passed by the subordinate Courts concurrently upholding the claim of the employee for reinstatement. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence, recorded that the employee had proved that he had worked with the employer for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of termination of his services and he was removed from service without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Industrial Court has independently examined the evidence on record and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour Court.

The learned advocate for the employee has submitted that he is reinstated as per the order passed by the Labour Court.

2 wp1783.17 In the facts of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE RRaut..