1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.NO.1309 OF 2010 Devchand Faguji Rane ..vs.. The Vidarbha Cooperative Marketing Soc.Ltd.Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010. Heard Mr.S.K.Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.S.Ghate, learned counsel for the respondent. The challenge is to the award of the Labour Court dated 18/7/2009 answering reference about the termination of services of the petitioner in negative. The reference was on the ground that there was dismissal of the services of the petitioner on 31/1/1997. The reference has been made accordingly on 31/1/2007. Learned Labour Court has found that there was no termination at all and hence reference was premature and has answered it in negative. Advocate Tambde has pointed that in Conciliation Proceedings before the A.L.C. there was/ is reference of termination of petitioner’s services after departmental enquiry. Shri Ghate, learned counsel, however, points out that the statement of claim filed in reference proceedings 2 before the Labour Court, there is no date of termination pointed out and 31/1/1997 has been disclosed to be the date of suspension pending enquiry. He further points out that in paragraph no.4 of statement of claim, the petitioner accepted that the enquiry was going on till 6/5/1998. Shri Tambde contends that because of defence of employer in conciliation proceeding, the petitioner has treated himself to be dismissed from service and has sought reference. I perused the papers and found that this story for assumption of dismissal of petitioner is not pleaded anywhere before the courts. Therefore, stand of petitioner that he was dismissed on 31/1/1997 and that till 6/5/1998 departmental enquiry was going on have remained unexplained. The alleged document contending the stand of employer in conciliation proceedings has not been filed before this court. The said stand appears to be in reply dated 31/10/2006. It is apparent that on basis of any pleading or allegation in the said reply dated 31/10/2006 an inference of termination on 31/1/1997 could not have been logically drawn. However, facts show that the petitioner who is aged about 46 years is out of employment. Hence, with liberty the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE chute