1 930-wp-5448-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5448 OF 2019 Shaikh Kabir Badshah VERSUS Deputy Conservator Of Forest Ahmednagar Forest Deapartment ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.B. Bhange ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026 P.C.: 1. Present petition is filed in order to challenge judgment and award dated 13.04.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar answering Reference IDA No.48 of 2014 in negative against present petitioner/second party in said reference. 2. It is the case of petitioner that he was working as a daily rated employee with the respondent as forest labourer w.e.f. 01.11.1992 and that his services were illegally terminated on 01.04.1997. The petitioner issued demand notice on 26.08.2013 i.e. after a period of 23 years and 6 months requesting reinstatement in services. He approached the Conciliation Officer vide letter dated 02.09.2013. Since conciliation failed, a reference was made to learned Labour Court. Learned Labour Court has found that the petitioner has failed to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. There was inordinate delay in initiating the proceeding and there was 2026:BHC-AUG:36964 2 930-wp-5448-2019.odt no material on record to substantiate that similarly circumstanced employee who were junior in service than the petitioner were continued in service. In view of such findings, reference came to be rejected by learned Labour Court. 3. Having gone through the judgment delivered by learned Labour Court and also pleadings and evidence on record, it is found that there is no material to infer that any employee similarly circumstanced and junior to petitioner was retained in service. Likewise, there is no material on record to indicate that petitioner has rendered services of more than 240 days in any calendar year. That apart, there is huge delay of around 24 years in initiating proceeding for reference. 4. In that view of matter, no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//