← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2618/2020disposed off

Santosh Shivlal Bodarde v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The District Collector, Solapur And ORS

2023-03-13Hon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2023.03.14 15:37:45 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 2613 OF 2022 Prakash s/o Nagnath Gaikwad ..... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2614 OF 2022 Shashikant s/o Kishanrao Mohite ..... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2022 Santosh Shivlal Bodarde ..... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9371 OF 2022 Chanvirappa Ganpati Madikambe ..... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents Mr.Vikram S. Undre for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions Mr.B.V.Samant, A.G.P. for the State 1/3

Mr.Neel G. Helekar for the Respondent nos.5 to 7

CORAM:

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED :

MARCH 13, 2023 P.C.

1.

We have heard Mr.Vikram S. Undre, the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.Neel G. Helekar, the learned counsel for Respondent nos.5, 6 and 7.

2.

The Petitioners have approached for direction against the Respondents to decide his representation and also seeks regularization.

3.

The learned counsel for the Respondent nos.5 to 7 submits that the representation of the Petitioners as prayed in prayer clause (A) is already rejected on 15.12.2022. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitioners are not informed about the same.

4.

The dispute appears to be whether the Petitioners have worked for 240 days or more in a year. The Petitioners are relying upon the certificate issued by the Branch Manager. Whereas according to the learned counsel for Respondent no.5 to 7, Petitioners have not worked for 240 days. The same would be 2/3

disputed question of fact.

5.

It would be appropriate if the Petitioners avail alternate remedy before the Labour / Industrial Court.

6.

In light of that, we dispose of the Writ Petitions with liberty to the Petitioners to avail alternate remedy.

7.

All contentions are kept open. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 3/3