-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6286 OF 1997 M/s.Span Engineering Fasteners 69/1C-Vanavadi, Pune--411 040. : Petitioner V/s. 1. Shri Chandrakant Laxman Kadam an Indian Inhabitant, of Pune, residing at 34/76, Netaji Nagar, Pune--411 040. 2. Shri R.B.Nimse, Presiding Officer, 3rd Labour Court, Pune, having his office at PMT Building, Swar Gate, Pune. : Respondents ... Mr.Kiran S. Bapat for the petitioner. Ms Neeta Karnik for respondent no.1. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2009. ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. The petitioner challenged the award of the 3rd Labour Court, Pune, in a reference made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was to the following effect:- -: 2 :- "Shri Chandrakant Laxman Kadam whose services have been terminated w.e.f. 8-12-91 should be reinstated on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages for the intervening idle period." 2. In the reference, the petitioner filed its Written Statement and the parties led evidence. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent no.1 has proved that his services were terminated orally with effect from 8.12.1991. 3. The respondent no.1 was working as a skilled worker. Admittedly, there is no termination order on record. The petitioner has throughout taken the position that it has not terminated the respondent no.1. This is apparent from the letter dated 16.12.1991 and the Written Statement dated 27.5.1993. There is another letter dated 20.2.1997 written during the pendency of the reference informing the respondent no.1 that he is not being truthful about the matter of the alleged termination and recording that, in fact, he did not report for duty. 4. Mr.Bapat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, -: 3 :- submitted that the award of the learned Labour Court is vitiated by non-consideration of the aforesaid documentary evidence which was admittedly received by the respondent no.1 and which has a direct bearing on the question whether the petitioner terminated the service of the respondent no.1 or whether the respondent no.1 failed to report for duty on his own. 5. Ms Karnik, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submitted that the impugned award addresses the main question that was referred and satisfactorily answers the question. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 pointed out the finding of the learned Labour Court in paragraph 14 where the Labour Court has observed that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent no.1 abandoned the services. 6. It is clear that one of the main issues was whether the services of the respondent no.1 were at all terminated. Indeed, if there was no termination, the petitioner could not have been saddled with back wages. The Labour Court has no doubt come to the conclusion that there was an oral termination based on the oral statements of the parties. However, the Labour Court has completely ignored contemporary letters admittedly received by the respondent no.1 which suggest to the -: 4 :- contrary. In fact, the letter referred to above suggests that the the petitioner had demanded of the respondent no.1 that he returns and joins the services. The Labour Court apparently got carried away by the alleged motive for termination i.e. the fact that the respondent no.1 attempted to form a Union. It is clear that even if there was such a motive for termination, the question whether, in fact, there was a termination effected by the petitioner had to be answered with reference to all the evidence available. That not having been done, it is clear that the award of the Labour Court suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner had reinstated the respondent no.1, but it appears that the respondent no.1 is again not in employment of the petitioner after a period of two years. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds. The impugned award is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. S.A.BOBDE, J.