1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 480 OF 2003 Shri Norman Albuquerque, H.No. 846, Alto-Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. ... Petitioner versus Shri Sandeep Vernekar Proprietor, Commando Industrial Security Force, Arpora, Bardez-Goa. ... Respondent Shri D. P. Bhise, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. Khedekar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2. A claim made by the Petitioner under Section 33C(2) of I. D. Act, 1947 for Rs.18,000/- as difference in wages payable from March, 1999 to August, 1999, and Rs.6,426/- by way of allowances, has been rejected by the learned Labour Court by Judgment dated 25-7-2003. 2 3. The case of the Petitioner was that he was employed by the Respondent as Office Staff, and even on that, there does not appear to be any consistency in the claim of the Petitioner. 4. In support of his claim, the Petitioner examined himself and led no other evidence. The learned Labour Court after considering the evidence produced by the Petitioner has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was not at all employed by the Respondent. 5. Shri D. P. Bhise, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that in case the Petitioner was not employed, the Petitioner would not be in a position to obtain the form for the appointment from the Respondent's Manager one Prasad Narvekar. It appears that the Petitioner when he filed the said application contended that he did not have any appointment letter but subsequently came with a copy which was written in his own hand and regarding the original of the said letter, he stated that it was with the Provident Fund Commissioner, and prior to that he contended that it was with his employer. The learned Labour Court has considered all the aspects of the claim of the Petitioner and for want of evidence that the Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent, has rejected the said claim. 3 6. In my view, the reason given by the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. There is no merit in this petition and consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD