1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.180/2009 Sudhakar s/o Pundlik Tayade Vs. Registrar, Amravati University. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 17th July, 2009. Heard Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Loney, learned counsel for the respondent. This Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court on a reference made by the Additional Commissioner(Labour) Nagpur. It is the case of the petitioner that he was serving with the respondent and he had completed 240 days of service and, therefore, he was eligible to be regularised in the service. Learned Judge of the Labour Court recorded evidence. He found that the petitioner 2 had served only up to May 1991 and did not work after May 1991 and, therefore, had not completed 240 days continuous service. Holding so, he rejected the reference. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence has not been read properly by the Court below and it has therefore come to the wrong conclusion. It was the case of the petitioner that he was serving with the respondent up to 31.7.1992 while it was the case of the respondent that the petitioner had abandoned the service in May 1991. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application requesting the Court to direct the respondent to produce the Muster Roll before the Court. It appears that the respondent had failed to produce the Muster Roll before the Court. In fact the Muster Roll was the best evidence that was available to assess as to up to what time the 3 petitioner had actually worked with the respondent. The learned Judge, in fact, should have called upon the respondent to produce the Muster Roll before the Court and should not have proceeded without this document on record. There is admission on the part of a witness as well as of the respondent that such Muster Roll is available with the University and that can be produced. In view of this particular admission, it was all the more necessary that the same should have been produced on record. Now, therefore, in order to afford an opportunity to both the parties, it would be necessary to remand the matter back to the Labour Court. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh and the Court should pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner for production of the Muster Roll before the Court. At this stage, Mr. Loney, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the University shall definitely produce the Muster Roll before the Labour Court, if the Muster Roll is available 4 with the University. The Labour Court may permit both the parties to produce oral or documentary evidence, if the parties so desire. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Judge. Ambulkar