YUVRAJ YASHWANT MASKEversusVAN PARIKSHETRA ADHIKARI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:24570
                                              1                       1WP9594.2024.odt


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 9594 OF 2024

               Yuvraj S/o yashwant Maske,
               Age : 64 years, Occu. Vanpaharekari,
               R/o. Khed, Tq. Lohara, District Osmanabad.               ...Petitioner

                           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

                                                  .....
               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

               03.05.2024 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur,
                                 2                     1WP9594.2024.odt
whereby Complaint (ULP) No. 253 of 2018 preferred by the Petitioner

came to be dismissed.


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 01.07.2000. He was performing his duties at the Range Forest

Office, Omerga, at Mouje Dhanori, 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
                               3                      1WP9594.2024.odt
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

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.
                             4                      1WP9594.2024.odt


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

           Identity Card issued by the Respondents show 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 01.07.2000. 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 the

           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,
                               5                      1WP9594.2024.odt
            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. Petitioner did not issue any notice to the Respondents

calling upon them to produce the muster roll or any other relevant

documents to substantiate his claim that he had worked continuously for

240 days or more in a calendar year since 01.07.2000. The learned

Industrial Court considered this aspect of the matter and observed that

the Petitioner had miserably failed to prove that he had continuously

worked with the Respondents for 240 days or more in a calendar year

since 01.07.2000.


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
                                6                       1WP9594.2024.odt
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

mentioned thereon. 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 Petitioner

admitted that, the Respondents had taken back the Identity Card to

verify as to who had issued the same. 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 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
                               7                        1WP9594.2024.odt
observations in the impugned Judgment show that, the learned

Industrial Court perused the same and recorded a finding that, the

wages received by the Petitioner were in respect of work done under the

scheme ‘MGNREGSSFA MAHA’, 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 25.04.2017 and

16.03.2018,    showing    amounts    of   Rs.15,417/-   and   Rs.8,017/-,

respectively, credited under the head “Forest Labour Payment”, and

observed that these two credit entries were insufficient to establish that

the Petitioner had been serving with the Respondents since 01.07.2000.

On the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Industrial

Court concluded that the Petitioner had miserably failed to prove that

the Respondents had paid wages to him through the Bank.


11.           The impugned Judgment reveals that, the learned Industrial

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
                                8                        1WP9594.2024.odt
circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment

and Order. The Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.


12.          Hence, the following order:

                                    ORDER


       [i]   The Petition is dismissed.


                                               [NEERAJ P. DHOTE]
                                                    JUDGE




SG Punde