Wp9139.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9139 OF 2009 Ramesh Dyandeo Kalugade ....Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Tibrewala Sales & Services & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. SD.D. Thokade i/by Mr. Dilip Shinde for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.C. Naidu with Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni i/by M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 9th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 The Petitioner has invoked Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenge is made to the finding of maintaining the order of termination against the Petitioner. The impugned order of the Industrial Court of Maharashtra at Mumbai, is dated 03/07/2007 whereby, the Revision preferred by the Petitioner against the order of dismissal of the complaint, dated 22/12/2004, was dismissed. In the result, both the Court after considering the material available on record and evidence so lead by the parties, made clear that the Petitioner failed to prove that the services were illegally terminated by the Respondent on 15/09/1997, by observing further that he was terminated without following due process of law. Wp9139.09 2 Therefore, rejected the case of the complainant that the Respondent has committed any unfair labour practice. 2 The said material and submissions re-agitated before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, under the Revisional jurisdiction, after hearing both the parties and after re-hearing the matter on the basis of the record, maintained the same. 3 It is very clear that once the complaint is lodged/ filed based upon the basic case of illegal retrenchment, first of all, the claimant- complainant must submits his case to support the illegal retrenchment. If the claimant wants to agitate additional issue that some one has appointed in his place, then also burden lies upon the Complainant to prove the same. The non- production of documents by the employer as alleged, just cannot be the reason to accept the case, when the complainant himself failed to prove his basic case. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- Management, makes statement and also observed on record that no one else is appointed in place of the Petitioner. In this background, in cases of retrenchment, if the case is made out and as the employer terminated the services under the said foundation and unless there is a substantial material to support the case that some one else is appointed by the Management, the case of illegal Wp9139.09 3 or malafide termination on the ground of retrenchment, is unacceptable. The findings so arrived at by the Court below, in view therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, no way can be stated to be perverse or bad in law. The appreciation of evidence and the view so taken in my view, therefore, need no interference. 5 The Petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)