Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9057 OF 2018 Shri. Himant Genaba Khomne ...Petitioner V/s. The Executive Engineer, Pune Irrigation Division ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2018 Shri. Kisan Laxman Khomne ...Petitioner V/s. The Executive Engineer , Pune Irrigation Division ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6796 OF 2018 Shri. Vasant Vitthal Narute And Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The Executive Engineer , Pune Irrigation Division ...Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3495 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6796 OF 2018 Pralahad Laximan Shinde ...Petitioner V/s. Shri. Vasant Vitthal Narute And Ors ...Respondents Page No. 1 of 5 27 July 2026 Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018 ________________ Mr. Nikhil Patil with Mr. Gajanan Shinde and Ms. Shreya Mahadik, for Petitioner. Mr. Sachin Gite, for Respondent No. 1-Pune Irrigation Division. Ms. P.J. Gavhme, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition No. 9057 of 2018. Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2018. Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition No. 6796 of 2018. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 27 July 2026 P.C.: 1) By these Petitions, Petitioners have challenged the judgments and orders dated 7 June 2017 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, allowing the Revision Applications filed by the Irrigation Department and setting aside the orders dated 1 April 2016 passed by Labour Court, Pune, in complaints of unfair labour practices instituted by them. 2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Gite, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and the learned AGPs in the respective Petitions and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I have gone through the findings Page No. 2 of 5 27 July 2026 Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018 recorded by the Labour and Industrial Courts in the respective orders. I have also perused records of the case filed along with the Petitions. 3) Petitioners claim that they had rendered continuous service from the year 1987 under the Executive Engineer, Pune, Irrigation Department since 1997 till they were terminated on 1 July 1996. With a pure griveance of termination from service they instituted complaints of unfair labour practice before Labour Court Pune. In their complaints, the only prayer made by them was for reinstatement in service with effect from 1 July 1996, with continuity and back wages. There was no prayer for grant of any benefits of Kalelkar Award. There was no prayer for bringing them on Converted Temporary Establishment (CRTE) or grant of permanency. 4) The Labour Court adjudicated the complaints filed by the Petitioners. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent took a specific defence that the Petitioners were not employed by the Respondent directly, but they were engaged to perform tasks/work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The Petitioners, on their own, could not produce any documentary evidence about direct engagement as temporary workers by the Executive Engineer. On the other hand, the Respondent was able to produce photocopies of the fortnightly muster rolls for EGS works. When application was filed tendering the said photocopies, the Petitioners submitted their say to the said application expressing no objection for filling of the said documents. More importantly, Petitioners conducted cross examination of Respondent’s witness with reference to the photocopies of the fortnightly muster rolls Page No. 3 of 5 27 July 2026 Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018 for EGS. These twin actions on the part of the Petitioners, in expressing no objection for filing of the documents and conducting cross examination of Respondent’s witness with reference to those documents clearly made the documents admissible in evidence. 5) The Labour Court had committed gross error in refusing to take into consideration such admissible evidence. In absence of any iota of evidence being produced by the Petitioners, the Labour Court erroneously held that they were directly employed by the Executive Engineer and that they were never engaged under the EGS scheme. 6) In my view, the Industrial Court has rightly corrected the error committed by the Labour Court by taking into consideration the documents produced by the Respondent alongwith the list at Exhibit C- 13. The fortnightly muster rolls clearly indicate that engagements of the Petitioners were under the EGS. Since they worked under the EGS, there is no question of either termination or reinstatement in service. 7) The Petitioners neither prayed for benefits of Kalelkar Award nor for the benefit of permanency in any manner. The limited remit of inquiry before the Labour Court was about the prayer for reinstatement. Since the engagements are ultimately found to have been made under EGS, there can be no employer-employee relationship between Petitioners and Respondent and therefore there is no question of grant of benefit of reinstatement. Page No. 4 of 5 27 July 2026 Vaishnavi 47-WP-9057-2018 8) The Labour Court had erred in allowing the complaints filed by the Petitioners. The Industrial Court has rightly set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court. No interference is warranted in the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court. 9) The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim Application is disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 5 of 5 27 July 2026