:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7714 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7714 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7714 OF 2008 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Pune ..Petitioner versus Ramesh S. Khaladker ..Respondent Mrs. N. V. Masurkar for the Petitioner. Mr. M. A. Kulkarni for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court could not have arrived at the findings that the respondent was working with the petitioner on the basis of the available evidence on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner specifically pleaded that the respondent has not been employed by the petitioner; the respondent has not produced any documentary evidence :2: to show that he was in the emplyment of the petitioner; in fact one of the respondent’s witness stated that the respondent was not working with him but may have been working with the organisation. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is other evidence on record and in fact the Court could have drawn adverse inference since the petitioner failed to produce documents which would have indicated that he was employed by the petitioner. This is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out the affidavit in reply to the notice of documents, which has been accepted by the Court. However, notice of documents on record does not find mention in the Award of the Court. 4. Under these circumstances, it appears that the finding arrived at by the Court that the respondent is an employer does not appear to be based on cogent and reliable evidence and in fact the Court proceeds to record the finding without adverting at all to the notice to produce documents and the affidavit in reply filed and the order passed thereunder. This constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record. In the result, :3: the impugned Award is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. All contentions are left open. Parties shall be entitled to file additional pleadings and lead additional evidence as may be advised. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)