Bombay High Court
SHAIKH KABIR BADSHAHversusDEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AHMEDNAGAR FOREST DEAPARTMENT
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court upheld the Labour Court’s rejection of the reference and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Shaikh Kabir Badshah, claimed he was a daily‑rated forest labourer employed from 1 November 1992 until his termination on 1 April 1997 and sought reinstatement. He issued a demand notice only on 26 August 2013, more than 24 years after his dismissal, and after failed conciliation, approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the petitioner failed to prove he had worked more than 240 days in any calendar year and noted the inordinate delay, also finding no evidence that similarly situated junior employees were retained. On review, the High Court found no material to contradict these findings and saw no basis to interfere with the Labour Court’s order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement despite a delay of about 24 years in instituting proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner satisfied the statutory requirement of having worked more than 240 days in a calendar year to be deemed a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the Labour Court’s order rejecting the reference.
Subjects
- labour law
- reinstatement
- daily‑rated employee
- delay in proceedings
- Industrial Disputes Act
- writ petition
- service tenure
- termination
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36964
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
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//
Checking your session…