1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | WRIT PETITION NO.10270/2010 ... Radhakisan Nandlal Upadhye V/s Champaklal Nanabhai Suratwala (Died) Through L.Rs. Hansaben Champaklal Suratwala & Anr. ... Mr.A.I.Deshmukh,Adv.for petitioner. .... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. DATE : 29/11/2010. 1] The above petition takes an exception to the award dated 11/9/2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon. By the said award, the Reference to the Labour Court was answered in the negative. 2] The petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased employee who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. 2 3] The employee was interalia claiming reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. The employee s case was that he was in the employment of the employer (since deceased) as Billing Clerk since 1967. According to the petitioner, the employer had orally terminated the employees services w.e.f. 17/11/1999 without notice and in contravention of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and at that time, the employee was getting monthly wages of Rs.2500/-. 4] I have perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that there was no letter of appointment given to the employee and there is no documentary evidence to show that the employee had worked with the first party and completed more than 240 days every year. In the evidence, the deponent could not establish the employer-employee relationship. In para 18 of the impugned order it is recorded as under : "18] From above discussion, it is clear that second party workman failed to prove that he has been appointed by Chanmpaklal Nanabhai Suratwala as a Billing Clerk in the 3 year 1971 and he worked there continuously till 17.11.1999 and completed more than 240 days in every year and he was drawing salary of Rs.2500/- p.m. It means, second party workman failed to establish the employer employee relationship between him and first party employer. Therefore, I have recorded my negative finding on issue No.1." 5] In view of the above, I do not find any error, infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Writ Petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED,J.) umg/wp10270-10