1 wp 8215.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8215 OF 2009 Kishor S/o Gambhir Bari .. Petitioner Versus The Jalgaon Municipal Corporation Jalgaon through its Commissioner .. Respondent Shri Vijay Y. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. R. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 07TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner approached to the Labour Court with grievance that he was in service with the respondent herein from 05.01.1992. However, the respondent terminated his services with effect from 30.11.1994 without following any procedure. No one month notice or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation as envisaged under provisions of Section 25-F of 2 wp 8215.09 the I. D. Act has been given by the respondent. The counsel further submits that, the petitioner herein has filed one document before the Labour Court showing therein that, he was in employment of respondent from 05.01.1992 till 30.11.1994. However, the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the contention of the petitioner in that regard. The Court should have directed the respondent to produce the original record, since it was incumbent upon the respondent to produce the record as per mandate of Supreme Court in case of Sita Ram & others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute reported in 2008 (5) SCC 75. The counsel further submitted that, since the petitioner herein is suffering from HIV positive, he needs money for treatment. Therefore, this Court may direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, there is no record with the Corporation showing the service of the petitioner herein. He further submits that, alleged termination as per the case of the petitioner is on 30.11.1994. However, the claim was filed on 24th August, 2004 i. e. after eleven years eight months and 24 days. Therefore, such claim could not have been considered and rightly rejected by the 3 wp 8215.09 Labour Court. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Reserve Bank of India V. Gopinath Sharma reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 221 and in particular para 20 of the said judgment. Therefore, the counsel for the respondent would submit that, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. 3. Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that, nothing was produced by the petitioner herein in support of his claim though he was working with the respondent Corporation from 05.01.1992 till 30.11.1994. The counsel for the petitioner was at pains to argue the matter. The counsel for the petitioner produced one document at bar and submitted that the document shows the service period of the petitioner and submitted that, the same document was placed on record by the petitioner before the Labour Court contending that he was in service with the respondent Corporation from 05.01.1992 to 30.11.1994. However, upon perusal of said document it does appear that it is not signed by any authorized officer of the Corporation or there is no stamp 4 wp 8215.09 of the Corporation. Therefore, such document which is not issued by any authorized person cannot be read in the evidence. That apart, I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the complaint filed by the petitioner is hopelessly time barred. Therefore, for all these reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and same stands dismissed. [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/March 11