AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shrihari P. Davare, J.—The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.9.2009, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3717 of 2009, dismissing the same, which was arising out of the judgment and order dated 20.5.2009, passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision (ULP) No. 33 of 2008, and further arising out of the judgment and order dated 19.3.2008, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 414 of 1993.
According to the appellant, he joined the services with the respondents as Mali at Aurangabad in the year 1978 on daily wages. It is the case of the appellant that he worked with the respondents for more than 240 days, and therefore, he is entitled for continuation in service. Moreover, the grievance of the appellant is that without considering the said fact, the respondents terminated his services orally on 13.7.1984. Hence, the appellant approached the Labour Court, Ahmednagar by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 414 of 1993, but same came to be dismissed by a judgment and order dated 19.3.2008 by the said Court.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 19.3.2008, the appellant assailed the same before the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision (ULP) No. 33 of 2008, but same also came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 20.5.2009. Hence, the appellant approached to this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition No. 3717 of 2009, but same also was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 16.9.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, the appellant (original petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal and prayed for quashment of the above referred judgments and orders.
Learned respective Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the fact that the appellant worked with the respondents only for 20 days in the year 1984 on daily wager, and since his services were not required by respondent No. 2, same was terminated on 13.7.1984. Learned Counsel for the respondents also canvassed that the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence on record to prove and establish that he worked with the respondents for more than 240 days continuously, and therefore, submitted that he is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for by him and present Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3717 of 2009, and also considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties anxiously, and at the outset, it is amply clear that the appellant was working with the respondents as daily wager, but it appears mat he failed to produce any cogent evidence on record to prove and establish that he worked for more than 240 days continuously with the respondents in the year 1984, and accordingly, the appellant failed to discharge the said burden rested upon him.
Moreover, it is also crystal clear that there are concurrent findings against the appellant i.e. the judgment and order dated 19.3.2008, passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 414 of 1993; as well as the judgment and order dated 20.5.2009 rendered by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision (ULP) No. 33 of 2008; which could not be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless they are shown to be perverse, and therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court rightly dismissed Writ Petition No. 3717 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein by judgment and order dated 16.9.2009. Moreover, after having comprehensive view of the matter, we do not find any patent error or perversity in the judgment and order dated 16.9.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3717 of 2009, and hence, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case to interfere therein under the jurisdiction of Letters Patent of this Court. In the result, present Letters Patent Appeal fails and same stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.