1 1WP9595.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9595 OF 2024 Janardhan S/o Sidram Misal, Age : 53 years, Occu. Vanpaharekari, R/o. Bhatangali, Tq. Lohara, District Osmanabad. ...Petitioner [Original Complainant] Versus 1] Van Parikshetra Adhikari, Van Parikshetra Karyalaya, Umarga, District Osmanabad. 2] Sahsanchalak, Vanikaran, (Mukhya Van Sanrakshak), Pradeshik Vibhag, Osmanpura, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar). 3] Vibhagiya Van Adhikari, Van Vibhag, Block No. 20, Central Administrative Building, Osmanabad. ...Respondents [Original Respondents] ..... Mr. B. R. Jaybhay – Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. M. L. Sangit – AGP for the State ..… CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : - 1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur, whereby Complaint (ULP) No. 256 of 2018 preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed. 2026:BHC-AUG:24662 2 1WP9595.2024.odt 3. The Petitioner filed the said Complaint with the contention that, he had been working as a labourer on the post of Forest Guard since last ten years. He was performing his duties at the Range Forest Office, Omerga, at Mouje Kanegaon, and was issued an Identity Card. For several months, he was not paid his salary. The Ranger used to obtain signatures on the muster roll and make payment accordingly. His nature of duty was to protect trees, cutting grass, digging pits, taking away plants from the nursery, plantation work, watering plants, and protecting trees from cattle, etc. According to the Petitioner, there are many permanent labours with the Respondents, who were given the benefit of permanency. He being a daily wager, was not given the benefit of permanency though he continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The Petitioner, therefore, sought relief of permanency along with consequential benefits. There was unfair labour practice and favouritism by the Respondents and accordingly prayed for appropriate reliefs in the said Complaint. 4. The Complaint was resisted by the Respondents by filing Written Statement. The contentions raised by the Petitioner were denied. It was contended that, there was no post designated as Forest Guard in the department and, therefore, there was no question of appointing the Complainant to such a post. According to the Respondents, the Complainant was discharging the work through a contract as per the requirements of the department. It was further 3 1WP9595.2024.odt contended that, the identity card relied upon by the Complainant was not issued by the competent authority. There was no permanent work available in their office and that no service muster roll was maintained. The Complainant was neither a permanent Van Mazoor nor a Forest Guard and, therefore, there was no question of obtaining his signatures on any muster roll. It was also contended that, no wages of the Complainant had been withheld. The Respondents further submitted that, the Complainant was not entitled to permanency or any consequential benefits and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 5. The learned Industrial Court framed the necessary issues, and the parties led their respective evidence. The Complainant filed his Affidavit of evidence and produced on record copies of his Identity Card, Aadhaar Card, bank passbook, bank statement, letters issued by the Range Forest Officer, and a copy of his application. The Respondents filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of Sayas Karad and thereafter closed their oral evidence. Upon appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Industrial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order. 6. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondents. [a] The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the 4 1WP9595.2024.odt Identity Card issued by the Respondents described the Petitioner as a Forest Guard, which indicates that, he was duly appointed. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year since last ten years. His wages were withheld from September 2018, and he was not permitted to sign the muster roll. In view of the Government Resolutions, the Petitioner was entitled for permanency. It is, therefore, prayed that the Petition be allowed. [b] Per contra, the learned AGP for the Respondents submitted that, the learned Industrial Court had considered all aspects of the matter on the basis of the evidence available on record. It is submitted that, there was no evidence to establish that the Petitioner had continuously worked for 240 days in any calendar year. The Identity Card relied upon by the Petitioner was not issued by the competent authority. It was further submitted that, there was no post known as ‘Vanpaharekari’ or ‘Van Majoor’ and, therefore, there was no question of appointing the Petitioner on such a post. No unfair labour practice was committed by the Respondents. The Petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed. 7. Perused the impugned Judgment. As regards the contention that, he had worked continuously for 240 days, the observations in the impugned Judgment show that, there was no documentary evidence to establish that the Petitioner had worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar year. The learned Industrial Court considered this aspect of the matter and observed that the Petitioner had miserably failed to 5 1WP9595.2024.odt prove that he had continuously worked with the Respondents for 240 days or more in a calendar year since last ten years. The Petitioner also relied on letters dated 16.07.2018 (Exh. U-37), 09.07.2017 (Exh. U-39), 04.01.2018 (Exh. U-40) and 01.03.2018 (Exh. U-41) in support of his claim that, he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The said exhibits were considered by the Industrial Court in the impugned judgment, and observed that none of those letters showed that the Complainant had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year. 8. As regards the claim for permanency based on the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996, the learned Industrial Court observed that, under the said Government Resolution, permanency was conferred upon those workers who had continuously worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year for a period of five years. Since the Petitioner failed to establish that he had continuously worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year with the Respondents, he was not entitled to the benefits contemplated under the said Government Resolution. 9. So far as the Identity Card is concerned, the observations in the impugned Judgment indicate that, the learned Industrial Court duly considered this aspect of the matter. It is observed that, the copy of the Identity Card was produced below Exhibit U-34 and that no date was 6 1WP9595.2024.odt mentioned thereon, and there was no material on record to indicate as to who had issued the same or whose signature appeared on it. The learned Industrial Court further observed that, the evidence relating to the Identity Card was cryptic and shaky in nature. The observations further show that the Identity Card did not bear the seal of the office of the Respondents and it raises suspicion on the authenticity of the Identity Card. It was also observed that, the Petitioner had failed to produce any appointment order and therefore, solely on the basis of a suspicious Identity Card, he could not be held to be an employee of the Respondents. The observations in the impugned Judgment show that, the learned Industrial Court considered the documentary evidence on record and recorded the aforesaid findings. 10. In respect of the entries in the bank documents, the observations in the impugned Judgment show that, the learned Industrial Court perused the same and recorded a finding that, there are credit and debit entries from 09/01/2014 onwards, and the credit entries were under the head “ROJGAR HAMI AMT”, NEFT “MGNREGSSFA”, “CREDIT” etc. and there was nothing to show towards what, the said amount came to be credited. It is further observed that, most of the credit entries are under the head “MGNREGSSFA” and nothing on record to connect those entries with Respondents. It is further observed that, apart from that, complainant has not produced any other document to show that, he received the said wages through 7 1WP9595.2024.odt Respondents and thus, he failed to show that, the amount credited in his bank account was towards his wages by the Respondent, and further observed that, there was no material on record to connect the said entries in the bank documents with the Respondents. The observations further show that, no document was produced to establish that, the Petitioner had received wages through the Respondents. The learned Industrial Court also considered the two credit entries in the passbook dated 18.11.2017 and 03.05.2018, showing amounts of Rs.16,034/- and Rs.11.80/-, respectively, credited under the head “Ropvatika”, and “Labour Charges” and observed that, these two credit entries were insufficient to establish that, the Petitioner had been serving with the Respondents since last ten years or since year 2000. 11. The learned Industrial Court also considered two certificates issued to the Petitioner by Forest Department and the Sarpanch of Kanegaon Gram Panchayat. It is observed that, there was no signature of any official on the certificate at Exh. U-44, and the certificate at Exh. U-45 was signed by several persons and it was not clear as to under what capacity said certificate was issued. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Industrial Court observed that, the said certificates cannot be used against the Respondents. 12. The impugned Judgment reveals that, the learned Industrial 8 1WP9595.2024.odt Court framed the necessary issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and decided the Complaint on the basis of the evidence available on record. The learned Industrial Court considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and assigned cogent reasons in support of its findings. Nothing is shown that the findings or observations recorded in the impugned Judgment are perverse or erroneous. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order. The Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 13. Hence, the following order: ORDER [i] The Petition is dismissed. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE] JUDGE SG Punde