WP/5145/1997 & anr. : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5145 OF 1997 Sub-Divisional Engineer Minor Irrigation Sub.Dn. No.2 Paud Road, Pune ... Petitioner V/s. Shri Vishnu Rajaram Tambore Kamshet, Tal.:Maval, Dist.:Pune ... Respondent a/w WRIT PETITION NO.5146 OF 1997 Sub-Divisional Engineer Minor Irrigation Sub.Dn. No.2 Paud Road, Pune ... Petitioner V/s. Shri Satish tukaram divekar Varvand, Tal.:Daund, Dist.:Pune ... Respondent Mr.U.G. Kerkar for Petitioner Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 31, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitions have been filed against the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. By the impugned orders, the Labour Court has granted the workmen i.e. the respondents in both the petitions reinstatement in service on their original posts with continuity of service and 40% backwages. The Industrial Court in revision WP/5145/1997 & anr. : 2 : has confirmed the order of the Labour Court. 2. The Petitioner is the Irrigation Department. According to the petitioner, the respondent workmen were employed on a particular project from 20.4.1986. Their services were terminated on 13.6.1989. The respondents filed complaints before the Labour Court being complaint (ULP) Nos.114 and 115 of 1989 in which they contended that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 3. A written statement was filed by the Petitioner in both the complaints contending that the workmen had not completed 240 days continuous service prior to being terminated from service. The Petitioner also contended that it is in these circumstances, the Respondent workmen who were employed on daily wages were not entitled to reinstatement. 4. The Labour Court allowed the complaints on 17.7.1995 by a common order. The orders of termination dated 13.6.1989 were set aside. The Labour Court declared that the Petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Petitioner was further directed to reinstate the workmen on their original posts with continuity of service and 40% backwages. As stated earlier, the Industrial Court has confirmed the order in revisions filed by the Petitioner. 5. The learned advocate for the Petitioner in both the petitions takes exception to the order of the Labour Court. He points out that the workmen led no evidence at all WP/5145/1997 & anr. : 3 : before the Labour Court and, therefore, the Labour Court had decided the complaints without there being any evidence on record. 6. This submission of the learned advocate is well founded. The Labour Court could not have allowed the complaints without the workmen stepping into the witness box or there being any evidence on record. It is now well settled that pleadings cannot act as a substitute for evidence. 7. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court must be set aside. 8. The learned advocate for the workmen has contended that the workmen are continuing in service by virtue of an order passed by this Court in the civil applications filed by the workmen. This order was passed on 12.4.2001. He therefore points out that no purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Labour court. He also points out that the parties had agreed to compromise the issue but the petitioner has gone back on his word. He then contends that there is a government resolution under which several conditions for employment of such workers who are paid daily wages are relaxed. According to him, this resolution would apply to the respondents herein and, therefore, there would be no need to remand the matter. 9. On perusing the resolution, prima facie, I find that the conditions which are relaxed do not pertain to the requirement of the workmen being in service for five years and having completed 240 days. Admittedly, the workmen were not in service WP/5145/1997 & anr. : 4 : for five years. 10. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to remand the complaints for a fresh hearing. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute in both the petitions. 11. Complaints (ULP) Nos.114 and 115 of 1989 are remanded to the Labour Court, Pune for a fresh decision in the matter. The parties are permitted to lead evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court will decide the complaints considering the fresh evidence which may be led and the effect of the aforesaid resolution, within one year from today. Since the respondent-workmen are still in service, the order passed by this Court on 12.4.2001 will continue till the complaints are disposed of.