Bombay High Court
JANARDHAN SIDRAM MISALversusVAN PARIKSHETRA ADHIKARI AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- NEERAJ P DHOTE
Holding
The Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioner failed to prove continuous employment of 240 days per year and therefore was not entitled to permanency; the High Court affirmed this finding and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a self‑described forest guard, filed a complaint alleging that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days each year for ten years and therefore was entitled to permanency and related benefits under a 1996 Government Resolution. The respondents contended that no such post existed, the identity card was unauthenticated, and the petitioner was engaged on a contract basis without any evidence of continuous service. The Industrial Court examined the evidence, found the petitioner failed to prove the requisite 240‑day continuous employment, held the identity card and bank credits unreliable, and concluded he was not eligible for permanency. On appeal, the High Court reviewed the Industrial Court’s findings under Article 227 and found no error or perversity. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner satisfied the statutory requirement of continuous employment of at least 240 days in a calendar year for five years to claim permanency under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996.
- Whether the identity card produced by the petitioner establishes a valid appointment as a Forest Guard.
- Whether the bank credit entries constitute proof of wage payment by the respondents.
- Whether the Industrial Court’s findings are perverse or erroneous warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to permanency and consequential benefits as a daily wage worker.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- Industrial Court
- permanency
- forest guard
- unfair labour practice
- Article 227
- employment law
- government resolution
- wage withholding
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24662
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.
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
Checking your session…