1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6490 OF 2008 Arun S/o.Laxman Koli PETITIONER VERSUS Range Forest Officer and another RESPONDENTS Mr.C.P.Patil, advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, AGP for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/07/2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard advocate for petitioner, followed by the arguments of AGP for respondent. 2. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner/original second party has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Jalgaon in Ref.I.D.A.No.30/2002, dated 31/03/2008. 3. With the assistance of learned advocate for petitioner and 2 learned AGP appearing for the State, perused the judgment under challenge passed in reference I.D.A.No.30/2002. It appears that the reference was referred to the Labour Court under sub section (1) of Section 10 r/w.sub section 5 of section 12 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second party who is petitioner before this Court has filed the claim that he was workman with the first party as “Van Rakhwaldar”. The first party i.e. respondent in the present petition is the industry. He has described the nature of the work which he has done. He works with respondent till 01/10/1998, and during that period, he was getting daily wages @ Rs.41.10 Ps. Thereafter his work was terminated by oral termination and then he lodged the complaint with labour commissioner and accordingly as per the procedure, his claim was referred to the Labour Court as no adjudication took place in the office of Labour Court. In the Labour Court, the reference is numbered as reference I.D.A.No.30/2002. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that both the parties have only relied on their pleadings and no oral evidence was placed on record. During the course of arguments across the bar, it is tried to urge that the petitioner herein have produced certain documents. It is a settled proposition of law that mere production of document is not sufficient to hold that the document produced stands proved. If no oral evidence is lead by the parties before the trial court to prove the documents on which they are relying, in that premise, the Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner failed to prove his case. Then the finding of the Labour Court can not be faulted as the finding was recorded without appreciation of evidence on record whereas this is a 3 case of no evidence lead by either of the parties. In the premise, no merits in the writ petition. Writ petition stands dismissed in lemine as devoid of any merits. No order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp6490-08