1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8486 OF 2009 Angad s/o Shripati Ayerekar, age: 44 years, Occ: service, R/o Babhalgaon, Taluka and District Latur. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Latur. 2 Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Division No.2, Latur. 3 Superintending Engineer, Public Works Mandal, Osmanabad. 4 Secretary, Public Works Division, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. .. RESPONDENTS Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav , A.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 The order passed by the Revisional Court on 23.11.2009 in 2 Revision (ULP) No.8 of 2009, is subjected to challenge at the instance of petitioner-employee in this petition. 2 It is the contention of the petitioner-employee that he was employed as Class IV employee by the Public Works Department. It is his contention that he has been promoted as watchman during his service tenure. However, his services have been terminated by issuing oral order on 10.09.2004. 3 Respondent-employer has caused appearance and denied the contention regarding continuous service of the petitioner as Class IV employee. It is contended that there is absolutely no evidence in respect of appointment of the petitioner nor he has been paid wages by the Public Works Department. 4 The trial Court, however, after considering the contentions raised by the parties, was pleased to allow the Complaint and directed reinstatement of the employee in view of the order passed on 03.01.2009. The employer preferred Revision Application No.8/2009, which came to be heard and disposed of by learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur, who was 3 pleased to allow the same. 5 I have perused the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court. It has been observed by the Revisional Court that the complainant has failed to produce a single document demonstrating that he was given appointment on a particular post. Although the petitioner employee has contended that he was promoted to the post of Watchman, there is absolutely no record in that regard. Mere contention of the petitioner employee that he was employed in Public Works Department for a long period of 19 years is not sufficient to hold that he was really employed by the employee. There ought to be some evidence in respect of employment of petitioner complainant during his alleged long tenure of 19 years. However, not a single piece of paper is placed on record to draw a conclusion that the petitioner employee was employed in Public Works Department in Class IV category. The representations transmitted by the employee to the various authorities itself is not a evidence in respect of his continuous service with the Public Works Department. In this set of facts, the Revisional Court was justified in reversing the order passed by the Judge, Labour Court. There is absolutely no evidence in respect of payment of wages to the petitioner- employee during his alleged tenure of 19 years service from 1991. 4 Admittedly, there is no written order of appointment nor there is any communication in writing in respect of termination of his services. Mere contention of the employee that he was employed by the Public Works Department is not sufficient to establish that he was really employed by the employer on the face of denial of contentions by the employer. The Revisional Court has properly assessed the evidence and recorded a finding based on appreciation of evidence. In exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would not be appropriate to probe into the questions of fact. The reasons recorded by the Industrial Court for reversing the order passed by the Labour Court appear to be reasonable, proper and founded on appreciation of record placed by the parties before the Court. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court is justified in reversing the order passed by the Labour Court. The petition is devoid of substance and does not deserve any consideration. 6 Writ Petition stands rejected summarily. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE adb/wp848609