1 W.P.No.3292. 92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3292 OF 1992 Shamrao S/o Nvruti Mundhe, Age Major, Occupation Nil, R/o C/o Pandurang Kale, Trade Union Centre, Bashirganj Beed, At Post, taluka and District Beed. ... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Nagar Road, Beed. 2. The State of Maharashtra, ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr.P.P.Shahane Advoate holding for Mr.Pradeep Shahane ,Advocate for Petitioner Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for respondents-State ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being heard and disposed of at the stage of admission. 2] By this petition, the petitioner challenges Award dated 16th July, 1992, rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Aurangabad in reference 2 W.P.No.3292. 92 ( IDA No.46 of 1988). By the impugned Award the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court rejected the Reference made under section 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3] The petitioner alleged that he was employed as Watchman and was working as such from 19th April, 1984, on the establishment of the respondent No.1. He asserted that he was terminated on 15th March, 1987 without following due procedure. No notice of termination was served on him. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. He alleged that some of the junior employees were retained in service, while he was shunted out. He further alleged that his termination was in contravention of Section 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, at his instance the Deputy Commissioner of Labour forwarded reference to the Labour Court. 4] The respondent No.1 resisted the claim on the ground that the petitioner was not in employment as such, but was appointed only on daily wages in pursuance to the scheme which was made applicable to 3 W.P.No.3292. 92 the drought prone area. It was alleged that after closure of the scheme no work was available with the respondent No.1, therefore, the scheme was transferred to the Forest Division on 01.11.1985. The respondent No.1 contended that by letter dated 15.2.1988 the petitioner was directed to be appointed as labour on daily wages by the Forest Department, but he did not attend the work. It was further contended that since the petitioner was not appointed on any post, it was not necessary to give him one month’s notice prior to the termination. It was submitted that the petitioner was not retrenched and was not entitled to seek retrenchment compensation. 5] The Labour Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that he was illegally terminated from service. The reference was answered in the negative. 6] Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 7] It is important to notice that the petitioner entered witness box. He deposed that he was terminated from service without following due procedure. He stated that he used to get Rs.230/- per month at the time of 4 W.P.No.3292. 92 termination. He further stated that he was in continuous service of the respondent No.1. He categorically made statement that the respondent no.1 had employed fresh candidates including one Ramrao Nagargoje, after effecting termination of his service. The testimony of the petitioner remained unchallenged. He was not cross examined. The respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence. The Labour Court, however, referred to a letter dated 15th February, 1988, which was allegedly issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed. That letter was not proved. The Labour Court observed that the petitioner did not deny the contentions made by the respondent No.1 in respect of the said letter, pleadings in appearing from the written statement. This observation of the Labour Court is rather strange. If said letter had been proved by the respondent No.1, then there was question of denial of the contents. The approach of the Labour Court is quite improper. It was necessary for the Labour Court to find out whether the petitioner was employed as regular watchman in particular pay-scale or that he was only on daily wager at the time of termination. It was also necessary to examine whether special scheme was over and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to seek 5 W.P.No.3292. 92 further employment. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court did not address the relevant issue while considering the Reference. There is no finding as to whether the petitioner was retrenched without compensation. 8] For the reasons stated above, the impugned award is set-aside. Rule made absolute. The petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court with direction to consider the relevant issues and decide the same afresh by addressing necessary issues involved, and if so required, by giving opportunity to the petitioner to adduce further evidence, so also to the respondent No.1 to adduce evidence in rebuttal. No costs. 9] The Labour Court also may grant alternate relief, if reinstatement will not be found permissible and the de- novo Award be rendered. The proceedings be completed within period of nine(9) months as far as possible. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK 6 W.P.No.3292. 92