JUDGMENT 1. In both these petitions, the judgments and orders dated 6th January, 2005 and 29th November, 2006, passed by the Industrial Court allowing the complaints filed under Section 28 read with Item 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in shor "the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act), directing regularization of the complainant Nos. 2 to 38 in W.P. No. 2526 of 2006 and complainant Nos. 2 to 5 in W.P. No. 5252 of 2007 in service and to extend them all the benefits arising therefrom in Complaint ULP Nos. 943 of 1994 and 1457 of 1993, have been challenged. 2. The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the complainants have established that they have continuously worked for 240 days and as per the provisions of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders, they are entitled to be regularized in service upon completion of continuous service of 240 days. It is also the finding recorded that the complainants have been working as "Badli workers" since last more than 10 years and the work is available with the petitioner employer to continue them in service. The court has also recorded the finding that the persons who are juniors to the complainants in service were made permanent. 3. The question involved in both these petitions is whether the complainants who have completed 240 days continuous service as Badli workers are entitled to claim permanency in terms of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders. The question is no longer res integra in view of the two judgments of the different Division Benches of this Court, i.e. (i) in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation vrs. Dhananjay, reported in 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 66 and (ii) in the case of State of Maharashtra vrs. Pandurang, reported in 2008 (5) ALL MR 497. 4. The Division Bench has held in Pune Municipal Corporation's case, cited supra, that in case the complainant wants to take the benefits of any factual situation, it is primarily for the complainant to plead and establish the necessary facts in that regard and in case of failure on the part of the opponent to meet the facts pleaded by the complainant, an inference can be drawn about the admission of those facts. It has further been held that in the absence of relevant facts being pleaded by the complainant, reluctance on the part of the opponent to raise the plea would not ensure to the benefit of the complainant, nor the Court can draw an adverse inference against the opponent on that count. The Court holds that it was not for the employer to contend about non availability of the permanent vacant post in the absence of a specific plea being raised by the complainant about the availability of such post. After taking into consideration the several judgments of the Apex Court, the Division Bench has held that mere completion of 240 days in service in the absence of availability of the permanent vacant post duly approved by the competent Authority would not be sufficient to claim permanency under clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders. Similar is the view taken by the another Division Bench in the case of State of Maharashtra vrs. Pandurang, cited supra. 5. In the present case, I have gone through the complaints filed before the Industrial Court and I do not find any specific averment about the existence of permanent vacant sanctioned posts. In view of this, merely because the complainants have completed 240 days continuous service, Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders would not confer upon them a right of permanency in the absence of sanctioned posts. 6. The decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Municipal Council, Jintur vrs. Sunder Namdeo Khillare, reported in 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 770 , does not take into consideration the aforesaid binding precedent. Similarly, the decision of the another Division Bench in case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vrs. Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare, reported in 2008 II CLR 301, does not deal with the question of regularization of the employees, but it clearly deals with the question of violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In view of above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The judgments and orders dated 6th January, 2005 and 29th November, 2006, passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP Nos. 943 of 1994 and 1457 of 1993 are hereby quashed and set aside. Complaint ULP Nos. 943 of 1994 and 1457 of 1993 are dismissed. No order as to costs.