1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1091 OF 2010 (Dilip Nanaji Kinnake vs. Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1092 OF 2010 (Satyawan Rameshwar Yelapure vs. Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2010 (Indrajeet Shrawan Khobragade vs. Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2010 (Rajesh Mahadeo Chahande vs. Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri & Anr.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1095 OF 2010 (Bhaurao Bihari Bagade vs. Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri & Anr.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 1096 OF 2010 (Dilip Ganpat Sondawale vs. Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2010. Heard finally Shri Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kankale, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2. The short contention of Shri Meghe, learned counsel is, the petitioner – employee had claimed employer and employee relationship with Municipal Council and he never pleaded that he was employee of any Contractor. The finding has been erroneously given in that connection. He has further stated that Municipal Council did not produce relevant documents before Labour Court and under Right to Information Act (RTI Act), the petitioner has received some documents later on. He has invited attention to Muster maintained by 2 the Municipal Council for the period from 15.02.1994 to 28.02.1994, from 01.03.1994 to 10.03.1994 and from 19.03.1994 to 24.03.1994, to show that the petitioner was working with the Municipal Council itself directly and Municipal Council has paid wages to him. He has further stated that in connected matters also similar musters are filed but in those documents period is different. He, therefore, argues that in the wake of those documents, the finding as recorded by Labour Court cannot be sustained. Had these documents been produced by the Municipal Council before the Labour Court, according to him, the relationship directly with the Municipal Council could have been proved. Shri Kankale, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that during cross examination, the petitioner employee has accepted that he was working with Contractor and he has also been terminated by the Contractor. He is relying upon the observations recorded by the Labour Court in para 9 of the impugned Award. According to him, in view of these findings which are findings of facts, this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. In reply, Shri Meghe, learned counsel has pointed out to this Court the order dated 21.03.2005 by which the dispute was referred to Labour Court to show that there was no question of any contractor in the matter. He has further stated that only to show their bonafides, the petitioners will not claim any wages up to 24th March 2009, if the matter is remanded back to 3 Labour Court to enable them to produce all documents and lead evidence afresh. The perusal of reference clearly shows that the termination was from service of Municipal Council and the language of reference does not envisage any relationship of employee with the Contractor. The observations in para 9 of the impugned Award show that the Contractor (present respondent No. 2) had entered into an agreement on 18.10.1999. The papers produced before this Court and alleged to be received by the petitioner under RTI Act reveal that they were in employment even prior to 18.10.1999. These documents are not looked into by the Labour Court. Respondent No. 2 – Contractor has also not entered the witness box. The documents about continuation of contract till termination of the petitioners have also not come on record. In this situation, I find that the documents in custody of Respondent No. 1were not produced by it for perusal of Labour Court. The documents are for limited period but then it show direct relationship of the petitioner with Respondent No.1. This finding does not mean that the subsequently relationship cannot undergo any change. However, Labour Court has to evaluate the evidence in the light of these documents to find out whether there was any direct relationship or whether the relationship has undergone any change thereafter. As the documents were not produced, I find it proper to refer the matter back to Labour Court, Chandrapur, to 4 take fresh decision in the matter. Only for that purpose, the impugned Award dated 24.03.2009 in IDA Reference No. 6 of 2005 and in other connected matters delivered by that Court is quashed and set aside and proceedings in reference are restored back for fresh decision. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court are on the basis of documents which the petitioners claimed to have received under RTI Act and Labour Court is free to draw its own conclusions in relation to those documents on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties before it. The parties are directed to appear before Labour Court on 18th October 2010 and Labour Court shall attempt to decide the proceedings at the earliest and in any case within a period of nine months after the parties appear before it. The parties are at liberty to file additional documents, amend their pleadings and to lead additional evidence, if so advised. In view of the statement made before this Court, the petitioners – employees have waived their wages or entitlement thereof till 24.03.2009 and Labour Court shall proceed further on this basis. Writ Petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.