1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.135/2011 GAJANAN MULEY ..VS.. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs Joshi, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 1 st February 2011. By this petition the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Labour & Industrial Court holding that the respondent had not committed any unfair labour practice under Item I of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act and the complaint filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Mili Coolie on 15.7.1989 and he worked in various sub-divisions of the department till 24.8.1990, when he was told that he should not work and he would be asked to come again after a short time. Since the petitioner claimed to have completed 240 days of continuous service the petitioner pleaded that there is non-compliance of the provisions of section 25(F) and 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner sought a declaration that the oral termination of the petitioner was illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages and continuity in service. 2 The respondents filed the written statements and denied the claim of the petitioner. It was denied that the petitioner was appointed as Mili collie on 15.7.1989 and worked continuously. According to the respondent, the petitioner was provided job work on contract basis and payment was made to the petitioner by as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The respondent pleaded that the complaint was false and the same was liable to be dismissed. Both the courts on an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record held that it was clear from the evidence that through the petitioner had stated that he was employed on a monthly salary of Rs.400/- he had admitted in his cross-examination that he received wages on hand-receipt and was paid wages on completion of the work. The documents were produced on record to show that the petitioner had received the wages by hand receipt. From the receipts it was clear that the petitioner was lastly paid wages on 28.2.1991, though it was the case of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were orally terminated by the order dated 24.8.1990. Though the respondent had failed to produce the documents on record, both the courts, relied on the admissions of the petitioner in his cross examination that he received wages on hand receipt for the work done by him. The petitioner had also admitted in his cross-examination that he was getting Rs.30/- per day towards wages. In view of the admissions of the petitioner, it 3 was observed by the court that the petitioner was appointed on job settlement or contract basis and hence there was no question of compliance with the provisions of section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the hand receipts ought not have been considered by the court while deciding the issue, is liable to be rejected as the petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that he received the wages on hand-receipts and he was getting Rs.30/- per day towards wages. Since both the courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was employed on a job settlement basis, there is a very little scope to interfere with the findings in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP