: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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1802 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1802 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1802 OF 2008 M/s. Nikita Enterprises ..Petitioner versus Awdhesh Singh ..Respondent Mr. Vasant J. Amberkar for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Award passed by the 4th Labour Court, dated 9.5.2007 allowing the Reference and directing that the respondent workman be paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000/- by the petitioner. 3. The Labour Court has found that the respondent’s services were terminated on 17.12.2002 without payment of any compensation on account of closure. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent workman has not proved :2: that he was employed for 240 days and he was therefore not entitled to any relief. However, it is clear from the impugned Award that the Labour Court has believed the evidence of the respondent that he had been working with the petitioner since December 1997 and his last drawn wages were Rs.4,200/- per month. The Labour Court has observed that there is no evidence produced by the petitioner as regards the services of the respondent workman. The petitioner’s case that it cannot produce the muster roll or attendance record because the same was destroyed in the rain, has not been accepted. The finding is one of fact. There is no perversity in arriving at the said finding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is an attendance card which is produced by the respondent, which shows that he was absent and therefore it should have been seen that services of the respondent were not terminated. This point does not appear to have been raised before the Labour Court and it would not be appropriate to allow it to be agitated for the first time since it involves evidence. There is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. :3: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)