DNYANDEO P SHINDE Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order and judgment of the Industrial Court dismissing the Complaint under M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act wherein he inter alia sought an order to set-aside the order issued by the respondents on the basis of the advertisements given in the newspapers on June 22, 2006 calling the temporary workmen and new workmen and for a declaration that the recruitment of the workmen junior to him and the appointment of the new workmen is illegal. The petitioner had also sought an order directing the respondents to pay him wages at par with permanent workmen during his service as continuous.

(2.) Mr. Parmar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order ought to be set aside and the matter be remanded with a direction to the Industrial Court to hear the same afresh and to pass an order furnishing reasons for the same. I am not inclined to do so as I do not find the impugned order as warranting any interference. The learned Member has raised the correct issues and considered the same.

(3.) For the purpose of this order, it is sufficient to refer to only the main aspect on merits. The Petitioner was appointed during the following periods on temporary basis: