Bombay High Court
SAMPAT KONDIBA JAYBHAYversusDEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AHMEDNAGAR FOREST DEAPARTMENT
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court’s order rejecting the reference.
Summary
The petitioner, a daily‑rated forest labourer employed from 1 September 1981, was terminated on 16 September 1990. After a delay of more than 23 years, he issued a demand notice on 11 February 2014 seeking reinstatement and approached the Conciliation Officer, which failed, leading to a reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the petitioner could not prove he had worked more than 240 days in any calendar year, noted the inordinate delay of about 24 years, and found no evidence that similarly situated junior employees were retained, thereby rejecting the reference. On review, the High Court concurred, finding no material to suggest continued service or comparable employees, and affirmed the Labour Court’s decision. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement despite the 24‑year delay in filing the reference.
- Whether the petitioner satisfied the requirement of having worked more than 240 days in a calendar year under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court’s order rejecting the reference.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- labour law
- reinstatement
- service tenure
- delay
- industrial disputes
- writ petition
- termination
- daily rated employee
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36956
1 930-wp-5447-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5447 OF 2019
Sampat Kondiba Jaybhay
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 10.04.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Ahmednagar answering Reference IDA No.11 of 2015 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. 01.09.1981 and
that his services were illegally terminated on 16.09.1990. The
petitioner issued demand notice on 11.02.2014 i.e. after a period of 23
years and 6 months requesting reinstatement in services. He
approached the Conciliation Officer vide letter dated 17.02.2014.
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
2 930-wp-5447-2019.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//
Checking your session…