1 wp5054-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5054 OF 2011 Shri Sudhir Tukaram Bagade .. Petitioner Vs. Dy.Director, Health Department and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Nitin A. Kulkarni for the petitioner CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 13th JULY, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner original appellant by way of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Satara in Revision (ULP) No.20 of 2010 rejecting the petitioner s’ application for interim relief arising out of the order dt.9.7.2010 passed by Labour Court, Satara below Exh.2 in (ULP) No.17 of 2010 rejecting the petitioners application for interim relief. Few facts of the matter are as under: 3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement dt.23.10.2008 he applied for the post of Nursing Orderly . ‘ ’ 2 wp5054-11.doc Thereafter, the respondents by their appointment letter dt.18.7.2009 appointed the petitioner as Ward Attendant and thereafter, issued ‘ ’ a termination letter dt.3.2.2010. 4. Being aggrieved by the termination letter dt.3.2.2010 the petitioner filed complaint (ULP) No.17 of 2010 before the Labour Court at Satara under section 28 Schedule IV item 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f). In the said complaint, the petitioner preferred interim application restraining respondent from acting on the basis of the letter dt. 3.2.2010. 5. The respondent filed their reply in the said complaint as well as interim application and specifically stated in para 6 (a) and (b) that the petitioner joined the services as Ward Attendant on the basis ‘ ’ of forged appointment letter. They also specifically stated in their written statement that they never issued such appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. 6. After considering the respondents reply as well as the outward register produced by respondent before the court, the Industrial Court rejected the petitioner s application by order dt.9.7.2010. ’ 7. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred Revision under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. At the time of dismissing the said revision, the Industrial Court also observed in para 7 that the respondent produced the outward Register of the office of respondent no.1 for 3 wp5054-11.doc the month of July 2009. The outward register which has been mentioned in the appointment letter dt.18.7.2009 bearing no.19630 does not tally with the numbers of the letters in the outward register and in such circumstances, the Industrial Court held that the petitioner joined the services on the basis of forged document. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without conducting any enquiry as required by law, the respondent issued termination letter dt.3.2.2010 which is against well settled principle of law. In support of the contention, he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Chief Engineer, MSEB and Anr. v. Suresh Raghnath Bhokare reported in 2005 1 CLR 491. In that authority, the Apex Court held that by applying the basic principle of rule of evidence which requires a party alleging fraud to give particulars of the fraud and having found no such particulars the Industrial Court and the High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent could not be held guilty of fraud and hence, no interference for the same. Whereas in the present case in hand, the respondent produced outward register to show that their office did not issue appointment letter dt.18.7.2009 in favour of the petitioner. Considering these facts, both the courts below rejected the petitioner s application for interim relief. ’ 9. In view of the fact that both the courts below after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner 4 wp5054-11.doc is not entitled to any interim relief. I do not find any substance in the present petition to interfere in the orders passed by both the courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)