WP/5950/1998 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5950 OF 1998 Shri Shivaji Angad Shinde ... Petitioner V/s. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Mutha Colony, Swargate, Pune ... Respondent Mr.NIranjan Mogre i/b S.M. Gorwadkar for Petitioner Mr.Suresh Bhosle, AGP, for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner has approached this court against the order of the Labour Court dated 18.6.1998 by which the Reference for adjudicating his dispute with respect to reinstatement and continuity of service with full backwages has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Mukadam from 1.9.1986 till his services were terminated on 10.8.1993. He filed an original application No.784 of 1994 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance on 9.6.1995 which was dismissed. The petitioner then approached the machinery available under the Industrial Disputes Act and obtained a reference for adjudication of his dispute with respect to reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. This dispute was registered as Reference (IDA) No.149 of 1996. WP/5950/1998 : 2 : 3. The petitioner filed his statement of claim contending that he had been illegally terminated from service by the respondent. He has also stated that he was signing the daily muster and that the respondent had employed him for many years by giving him intermittent breaks in service. The petitioner has also stated that he worked for more than 240 days in each completed year of service preceding his termination from service. 4. No reply was filed by the respondent. The Labour Court has accepted the contention of the respondent that the reference was required to be dismissed since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in service. The Labour Court has found that the workman had not established, by leading cogent evidence before it, that he had been working for 240 days in the preceding 12 months. The Labour Court therefore dismissed the reference. 5. It is strenuously argued by Mr.Mogre appearing for the petitioner that the Labour Court's finding that there was no material to draw the conclusion that the there was a master and servant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner, is incorrect. He submits that before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour the respondent had in fact stated that it had terminated the services of the petitioner who was working with them. He therefore submits that the award must be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing. 6. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent in which it is categorically stated that the workman had not been terminated from service but that he was absent on WP/5950/1998 : 3 : his own accord from 10.8.1993 onwards. It has been further stated in the affidavit that the workman has not completed 240 days in service and therefore, was not entitled to compensation u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The affidavit also indicates that the workman was employed on certain projects and that those projects have been completed and there was no scope to employ him elsewhere. 7. In my opinion, the Labour Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and held that the reference is required to be dismissed. Besides the bald statement made in his statement claim that he had completed 240 days in service the petitioner has not produced any cogent evidence on record to establish this fact. The Labour Court has rightly observed that it was necessary for the petitioner to call upon the respondent to produce the muster rolls and other documents to establish his case that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months. 8. Considering the material on record including the pleadings in my opinion, the Labour Court has not erred in dismissing the reference. 9. Petition rejected. Rule discharged. No costs.