Dismissed¶27

Sheshrao Dhonduba Dighole and Others v. the Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corp. Limited, Yavatmal Forest Project Division and Ors.

Bombay HC5 May 2026WP/3616/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of Forest Labour; Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012; Forest Development Corporation Limited, Nagpur; representation dated 25.03.2026; maintainability of writ petition for direction to decide representation; Industrial Court as proper forum for regularization claims; earlier W.P. No. 676 of 2026 (Dilip Deshmukh) withdrawn 03.02.2026; W.P. No. 715 of 2017 (Divisional Manager, Nagpur v. Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara) distinguished; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach Industrial Court; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Kilor and Wakode, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the appropriate Industrial Court for claiming relief of regularization under the appropriate provision of law. ¶27

Sheshrao Dhonduba Dighole and Others vs the Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corp. Limited, Yavatmal Forest Project Division and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6948-DB

¶2

1.wp.3616.2026.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3616 OF 2026

¶6

Sheshrao Dhonduba Dighole and others

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The Divisional Manager, Yavatmal and others

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

¶10

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶11

and Registrar's Orders.

¶12

None for the petitioner/s

¶13

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 05th MAY, 2026 .

¶14

None appears for the petitioners even on second

¶15

call.

¶16

Perusal of the prayer clause reveals that the petitioners are seeking direction against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the petitioners for regularization as the Forest Labor alongwith arrears of their services/salaries in view of the Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012. The petitioners also seek a direction against the respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representation dated 25.03.2026 made by the petitioners.

¶17

Perusal of the petition reveals that this Court, on earlier occasion, in Writ Petition N. 676 of 2026 (Dilip Deshmukh and others .v/s. The Divisional Manager, Yavatmal and others) deal with similar prayers and had informed learned counsel for the petitioners that relief as sought aforesaid cannot be claimed before a writ Court and

¶18

1.wp.3616.2026.odt

¶19

¶20

the proper and appropriate forum will be Industrial Court as the petitioners are claiming the benefit of regularization.

¶21

In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners on 03.02.2026 had withdrawn the earlier writ petition alongwith liberty to file appropriate proceedings. After the aforesaid order, the petitioners had submitted a representation on 25.03.2026 to the respondent No. 3 Managing Director, Forest Development Corporation Limited, Nagpur and now the petitioners are seeking direction against the respondent No. 3 to decide the aforesaid representation.

¶22

It was intimated to the learned counsel for the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation that the proper remedy for claiming the benefit of regularization under the appropriate provision of law is before the competent Industrial Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 715 of 2017 (The Divisional Manager, Nagpur & others .v/s. The Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara and others) with other connected matters, which is at Page 37 Annexure E. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment also reveals that it was not in the original jurisdiction that the aforesaid petitions were entertained. But the aforesaid writ petitions were filed by the employer to challenge the orders passed by the Industrial Court upholding the claim of the employees for regularization

¶24

¶25

1.wp.3616.2026.odt

¶26

of their services in view of the Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012.

¶27

In view of the above, the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents for deciding the representation for granting the benefit of regularization is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶28

However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate Industrial Court for claiming relief of regularization under the appropriate provision of law.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶31

Namrata

¶32

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/05/2026 19:39:55

Sheshrao Dhonduba Dighole and Others v. the Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corp. Limited, Yavatmal Forest Project Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshrao Dhonduba Dighole and Others v. the Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corp. Limited, Yavatmal Forest Project Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaishali W/O Satish Pathare vs Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith, Akola, Thr. Registrar and Another

Hasan Kha Chandkha Pathan vs Employees P.F. Commissioner, Epfo, Akola and Another

Dr. Zishan Ahmar Hussain Khan S/O. Khan Mohd. Azhar Hussain vs the Mayor, Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola and Ors.

Shri Sevadas Shikshan Sanstha, Palodi, Thr. President, Bharat C. Chavan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Minority Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Rutupurna Babarao Kirtiwar vs the Collector, Yavatmal and Another

Shailendra Purushottam Bute vs Smt. Nayana Gunde, the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati