: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.535 OF 2010 Swastik Packaging Services .. Petitioners V/s. Angeline Naidu & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.V. Lokhande with Mr. Anupam Surve for the Petitioners. Mr. K.S. Verma for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 12 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the Award dated 23rd January, 2009, passed by the Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No.485 of 1997. By this Award, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. An amount of Rs.1,000/- as costs has also been awarded. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 and, therefore, the question of granting any reinstatement does not arise. It is further : 2 : contended that the demand raised by the Union was only in respect of furnishing attendance card and payment of wages. It is therefore submitted that since no demand was raised against the petitioner, the question of a Reference being made for adjudication does not arise. 3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat & Ors., reported in Supreme Court L & J 1968. Admittedly, the schedule of the Reference indicates that the adjudication was in respect of the reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages as respondent No.1-workman was employed in the petitioner firm. Therefore, this submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is untenable. The judgment in the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat & Ors. has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. The Labour Court while considering the evidence on record has observed that despite an application : 3 : for production of documents being filed by the respondent No.1-workman, the petitioner-firm failed to produce the documents. These documents included the muster roll and wage register. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the firm being registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, was not required to maintain the muster roll and wage register for so long. According to the learned Advocate, it was therefore not possible for the petitioner-firm to produce the documents relating to the year 1997. 5. The Labour Court, in my opinion, has rightly dealt with this issue and has drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner-firm for not producing the documents. The Labour Court has also observed that there was a paper arrangement in respect of the petitioner- firm and the respondent No.2-firm, both being firms of one family. The agreements under which these firms are established have been noted by the Labour Court and in my view there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has drawn a possible view which in my opinion is not perverse. : 4 : Therefore this Court need not interfere with the award while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Writ Petition is rejected.