1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4107/2011 (ROPWAN ADHIKARI SAMAJIK VANIKARAN DAL FAIL, KHAMGAON VERSUS MAHADEO SAMPAT MOREY & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.P. Badar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Labour Court, Buldana on 25.10.2010 partly allowing the reference and directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rupees Fifty Thousand to the respondent no.1. It appears that though in the previous round of litigation, this Court had, by an order dated 20.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.1135 of 1997 remanded the matter to the Labour Court for granting an opportunity to the parties to amend their pleas and also tender evidence, the petitioner has not tendered the relevant evidence in this case, after remand. In this Court, a certificate dated 04.04.2005 is filed by the petitioner to show that the respondent no.1 was not stationed at village Tembhurna at the relevant time and was working in Bombay for a period of fifteen years. This certificate was, however, not filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court and the petitioner cannot rely on the same in this writ petition. 2 The Labour Court, on an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record, held that the petitioner had mischievously orally terminated the services of the respondent no.1 on the ground of alleged abandonment of services. The plea raised by the petitioner that the respondent no.1 did not report for duty was not accepted by the Labour Court and the Labour Court held that the respondent did report for duty but he was not allowed to work. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court did not grant a larger relief of reinstatement and back wages to the respondent no.1 and in stead granted lump-sum compensation of Rupees Fifty Thousand to the respondent no.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the respondent no.1 had proved his case and the petitioner had not tendered any evidence even after remand, the Labour court was justified in passing the award granting Rupees Fifty Thousand to the respondent no.1 towards compensation. Since there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.10.2010, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE