1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3640 of 2008 State of Maharashtra thr. Exe. Engineer Irrigation Department Vs. Ramdas Vitthal Choudhari Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A. D. Sonak, AGP. for petitioner. Shri A. J. Salway Adv. for respondent. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA J. Dated: 22 nd January, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent claimed that he was working continuously as a labourer on Nominal Muster Roll on daily 2 wages with the petitioner since 1976 to 01.04.1995 but inspite of that without following the procedure laid down in Section 25(F) and 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 01.04.1995 while some of his juniors were retained in service and thus there has an an unfair labour practice. 3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The petitioner denied that the respondent was continuously working with the petitioner. It was contended that he was employed as casual labourer during certain period of an year and he had never worked for 240 days in any one year and that he was not protected under Section 25(F). In respect of the persons who are said to be junior to the respondent, it was contended that each of them had completed work of 240 days or more in any one year and thus they were brought under CRT Establishment and therefore the case of the respondent could not be compared with them. 3 4. Labour Court Wardha passed an award on 09.04.2007 answering the reference in affirmative which means that the respondent should be reinstated with payment of back wages and continuity of service w. e. f. 01.04.1995. Termination was declared to be illegal and the same was set aside. Hence the petition by the petitioner challenging the order. 5. On perusal of the impugned Award it becomes clear that none of the parties had led any evidence before the Labour Court and because reference was required to be answered the Labour Court proceeded to dispose of the reference on the basis of certain pleadings. The Labour Court noted that on the basis of Annexure II which is a Nominal Muster Roll the respondent had spells of service from 02.12.1977 to 29.03.1995. Learned AGP for the petitioner pointed out that the said statement clearly shows that respondent had never worked for 240 days in any one year and the Labour Court came to the wrong conclusion that he was protected under Section 25(F). Whether that statement is correct or not cannot be ascertained particularly when the 4 parties had not lead evidence before the trial Court. It appears that the matter was pending for about 11 years and finally it was decided in favour of the respondent even though he had not lead any evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in any one year . In my considered opinion for the proper decision of the reference it was necessary for the parties to lead evidence. In the present case I also feel that it was necessary for the petitioner to lead evidence to explain the muster and chart showing the working days of the respondent during the period from 1977 to 1995. Therefore, in the interest of justice it will be necessary to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter back to the labour Court for fresh hearing and passing the award on the said reference. 6. The impugned Award dated 09.04.2007 in Reference (IDA) No. 7 of 1996 passed by the Labour Court Wardha is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh decision after giving opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence in support of their claim. 5 7. Parties shall appear before the Labour Court Wardha on 16.02.2009 and Labour Court shall fix the date for recording of evidence and hearing. As the matter is very old Labour Court shall expedite the same and dispose of the reference as early as possible and in any case by the end of April 2009. JUDGE svk